The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-12 00:00:00

AFFIRMATION BILL.

The adjourned debate on the amendment on the second
reading of this bill, viz., that the bill be read a second time
that day six months, was resumed.

Mr. DILLWYN thought the bill a very good one, and
therefore he should give his vote in favour of the second
reading. He could not see the force of the different
arguments that had been urged against the bill. He had
a great objection to the cross-examination of witnesses on
points of belief in courts of justice ; for himself ho wished
belief was a matter of certainty. He wished he could believe
that he could obtain absolution from a frail mortal like him-
self. Belief he looked upon not as a matter of will but of
possibility, and he was far from thinking that this
bill would interfere with the administration of justice. On
the contrary, he was of opinion that it would tend to
the reduction of unnecessary oaths, and thereby religion
would be advanced and justice furthered. It had been said
that Government should have brought in the bill, but,
because they had not done so, he did not think that the
house was called upon to reject this measure. (Hear,
hear.) In this bill nothing new was asked
for. India was now a part of the dominions of
the Crown, and the law in that part of the
world allowed all this bill proposed to do in this country.
Why should England be behind India in respect to oaths
and affirmations. In giving evidence a person did so as a
.duty to society, and he thought society ought to get
that evidence in the best way it could. Refer-
ring to the great mystery that surrounded the
mysterious murder at Road, if a person came forward and
said he could give most important evidence that would tend
to elucidate that mystery, if he were cross-questioned as to
his religious belief before giving that evidence, and he was
neither Separatist, Quaker, or Moravian, his evidence would
be inadmissable, because he could not conscientiously take
the oath. In India they allowed barbarous and ignorant
persons to give evidence without taking an oath, and the
jury took the evidence for what it was worth, and he
was, as he had said before, at a loss why the same privilege
should be denied in England. He voted for the bill because
he believed that the interests of justice would not be
impeded, or the interests of true religion interfered with.

Lord R. MONTAGUE objected to the bill, as it was
framed solely for the purpose of relieving those who looked
upon the taking of an oath as an empty ceremony. He did
not think the parties interested in the passing of this bill
would rest content, supposing Parliament sanctioned it;
but that the house next year would be ealled upon to give
its assent to a bill abolishing oaths altogether.
Mr. BAINES said he had hoped before he came into the
house that some other mode of dealing with the question
than that of rejecting it altogether would have been sug-
gested. He approved of the bill he held in his hand. The
hon. gentleman was quo.ing some passages from it when
he was informed it was not the one then under con-
sideration.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should give his vote against
the second reading of the bill. It could not be said that
the law at present was based upon any narrow religious
prejudices. The Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists were
relieved from the taking of an oath, because they objected
to do so from religious scruples. The law also admitted
the evidence of pagans, heathens, Hiudoos, and Chinese to
be taken, when it was given after the witness had stated
that he considered the declaration he was called upon
to make was binding upon him to speak the
truth. The bill appeared to him to be intended to meet
the case of a defect in religious belief. When a person of
known opinions entered a witness-box he did not object to
give evidence, but his evidence was objected to. The
measure seemed to him to be based on an erroneous view of
the case for which a remedy was required, and he for one
could not consent to throw upon the judges of the land a
duty impossible for them to discharge. The bill seemed to
him altogether to miss its mark, and therefore he could not
give it his support.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the question was both a difficult
and important one. He thought the bill a good one, and
therefore he should give it his support. He should like to
have the question, whether an oath was any guarantee
for speaking the truth, fairly argued. Many a trust •
worthy man had been put aside because he conscientiously
refused to take an oath ; and one who took the oath,
without the least intention of adhering to it, was allowed
to give his evidence. That some remedy to the present
system was required was evident. For instance, a man
who was said to be an unbeliever could be robbed with im-
punity. Knock him down, rob, murder him ; :no, not
murder him, because you then put it out of his power to
give evidence, but treat him in the most brutal manner,
and he had no remedy in a court of law. Because, if the
man happened to have no corroborative evidence, counsel
for the prisoner had only to ask him whether he was a be-
liever or not before he gave his evidence, in order to get
rid of his testimony altogether. (Hear, hear.) A con-
scientious man refused to take an oath because ho
objected to it religiously, but a rogue who took it, looking
upon it as a mere matter of form and nothing else, was al-
lowed that which was denied an honest man. it was
because he objected to such 's. state of things that he should
give the bill his support.
Mr. WALTER objected to the bill because it destroyed
the difference between man and beast, and because it struck
at the root of truth.
Mr. DENMAN could not support the bill because it
would be of no avail in the case of the shuffier and liar.
Mr. M. SMITH opposed the bill, because if it received
the assent of the house it would remove one of the safe-
guards against perjury.

Mr. HEATHCOTE objected to the bill, as it would not
remedy tho evil complained of, but would lead to greater
dilculty, and open the door to all sorts of evasions.
Mr. LOCKE said by the Common Law Procedure Act
of 1854 the judge had, in civil cases, the power of relieving
a person from taking an oath if he stated that the doing so,
according to his religious belief, was unlawful ; and the
present bill only sought to give the same power in crimi-
nal cases. The affirmation in the bill now before them set
forth that an oath would not, in the judgment of the wit-
ness, be more conducive to the speaking the truth than his
deliberate undertaking to do so. Bait tie Common Law
Procedure Act required a witness to declare that, accord-
ing to his religious belief, the taking of an oath
was unlawful. The fact was, ,the whole tendency
of legislation on this subject had reference, not so much to
the relief of the conscience of witnesses, as to furthering an
act of justice. No inconvenience had ever arisen from the
relief that had been already given to certain sects. He
should vote for the second reading of the bill ; and lin the
event of its not being successful, he should bring forward
the bill on the same subject that stood lower down in_ . e
orders for that day in his (Mr. Locke's) name, a_n,ct Ai__
should claim the votes of many:gentlemen who ob-jeche the
pressly laid it down that a person makir_g an
measure then under discussion, because in liis a billffi r r e a t ieoin"
must have a religious belief.
againstrth in the bill was
ing of this bill. The affirmatirin set
Mr. WMAHON should vote(H
because it contained
such as the most careless coi':id take,
the truth or the
neither reference either tr., speakingkifhe declaration.
reli-
gious belief of the par': (Hear, hear.) second read .
with cases where failures
met
groat service. -ire bad the there being no
place in co asequ.
Mr. MELLOR Thought athengbill one that would be of
of justice hr taken
proposed to give judge. With-
such pc.Aver as the bill
himself further than the present bill with
question of oaths, upon which he entertained
respect to the. e
h would give his vote in favour of the
outcommitting
a strong
opinigen'f the bill.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL most strongly objected
The SO GIG
d • d the hergo
1 second
and he a vise
before bill,
1 to the
reed to the changes ppo d by it.
reading
before they g beense Va-
rious in former efforts had made years without
success to effect the object now proposed, and he thought
their ancestors had acted right when they declared that
persons without a religious conscience or belief should not
be accepted as witnesses in courts of justice. He believed
it was admitted that the change, as far as ' witnesses were
concerned, would not stop there. He thought the bill was
objectionable in rinciple, and seem to hold out an invitation
to those who wished to evade the responsibility of giving their evidence under the sanctity of an oath.
Sir J, $11E141.4.EX rose, midst loud cries of i; Divide."

He said they had had the reasons of many legal gentlemen
why they intended to vote for or against the bill, and he was
anxious to state that in giving his vote in favour of this bill
he was not, as had been reported, of all those, who sup-
ported the measure, voting for no religion at all. (Divide,
divide.)
Sir J. TRELAWNY replied, and the house divided,
when there appeared—
For the recond reading..
Against it
Majority
The bill was consequently lost.
LOCOMOTIVES BILL,
-

The houso went into committee on this bill, which was
for the purpose of allowing locomotive carriages to travel
on turnpike roads.
Clauses up to 10 were agreed to, with some trifling
amendment.
On clause 11,

Mr. BLACK proposed the following proviso :—" Pro-
vided that no locomotives propelled by steam shall be used
within the limits of any municipal or parliamentary
borough, without authority tin writing of the Mayor or
other authority."
Sir J. SHE LLEy thought that none of those locomo-
tives should be allowed to run on turnpike roads with-
out the permission of the Board of Works. He thought the
streets of the metropolis were quite unsuited to running of
these enormous carriages. The hon. and learned member
had given up the amendment he had given notice of, but
he should take it up, and he therefore moved an amend-
ment to the effect that none of the locomotives shall
run within the limits of the metropolis without
a license for that purpose being first obtained
from the Metropolitan Board of Works, with such condi-
tions in the license as may be deemed necessary for the
public safety and convenience, and any person running,
locomotives without such license shall be liable on convic-
tion to a penalty not exceeding £5.
Mr. GAItNETT said the clause in the bill as it stands
had the satisfaction of the Lord Mayor of London, and he
therefore thought the amendment was altogether un-
necessary.
Sir J. SHELLEY said the consent of the Lord Mayor
only extended to a very small part of the metropolis,
whereas that of the Metropolitan Board of Works had
power over the whole.
Mr. GRIFFITH moved an amendment to the proposi-
tion of the hon. baronet who had just resumed his seat as
follows—" nor within the limits of any municipal or parlia-
mentary borough, without a license for the purpose being
firstobtainedfrom the mayor and town council under their
common seal."
Mr. W. PATTEN said the greatest difficulty would
arise if every town council was allowed the privilege of
legislating in the same manner as that house. Some coun-
cils would give consent and the other refusals, and the
greatest inconvenience would arise. He thought the real
question that ought to be discussed was whether these loco-
motives should run on common roads at all.
Mr. SYDNEY thought great inconvenience would arise
from the running of these locomotives in the metropolis.
He need not mention the crowded state of the roads in
Shoreditch or High-street, Southwark, to show how great
would be the confusion by the appearance of these great
locomotives in that part of the metropolis. He lived in tha
part of the metropolis monopolised by one of those train-
roads—that running to Bayswater—and the result was that
one half of that broad thoroughfare was completely mono-
polised by the carriages on that tramway.
Mr. EST C OURT objected to increasing the difficulties
of traffic in the metropolis. No one now could travel in a
carriage along the lines occupied by the tramway without
getting the wheels of the carriage in great danger.
Sir G. LEWIS said he thought the clause as it stood
was sufficient ; but he did not think there could be any
objection to the proposed amendment of the hon. baronet
the member for Westminster as far as the metropolis was
concerned. With respect to the provincial towns, if it was
thought proper to empower the Home Office to make regu-
lations, he would carry out the regulations to the best of
his judgment.

After: a short discussion the committee divided on Mr,
Griffith's amendment, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
—7l
The Usher of the Black Rod here summoned the Speaker
to the House of Peers to hear the royal assent given to
several bills, for'which see Lords' report.
- On the return of the Speaker, the house divided on Sir
J. Shelley's amendment to clause 11 of the Locomotive
Bill, when there appeared—
For the amendment. ...
Against it
. .

Majority —4B
Clauses 12 and 13 were agreed to.
On clause 14,
Col. FRENCH moved an amendment to the effect that
Ireland be exempted from the operation of the bill.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
The preamble was then agreed to, and the bill was re-
ported with amendments.

The house then resumed.
INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN
DISTRICTS) BILL.
Tho second reading of this bill was postponed until the
3d of July.
ANNOYANCE TO JURORS (WESTMINSTER)
BILL.

This bill, as amended, was considered, and ordered to be
read a third time,