The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-13 00:00:00

IMPE RIAL PAR LIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal assent was given by commission to the follow-
ing bills :
Customs and Inland Revenue.
Stockton and Darlington Railway (New Railway).
Great Northern Railway (Purchase of Hertford Line).
Belfast and County Down Railway.
Mid Wales Railway.
London and North-Western, and Manchester and Shef-
field and Lincolnshire Railway (Manchester London Road
Station).
Eland Gas.
Portadown, Dungannon, and Omagh Junction Railway.
The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
Earl St. Germans, and Lord Monteagle.
Their lordships then adjourned.

---
HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
- THE AFFIRMATION BILL.
Sir J. TRELAWNY presented six petitions in favcur of
this bill.

GALWAY CONTRACT.
Colonel FRENCH presented a petition against the with-
drawal of the Galway contract.
Mr. M'MAHON presented similar petitions from Ennis-
corthy and other places in Ireland.
SWITZERLAND.
Mr. KINGLAKE gave notice that on going into corn•
mittee of supply he should ask her Majesty's Government
what progress had been made in the announcement made
in her Majesty's speech in the arrangements in securing
neutrality and independence of the Swiss confederation, also
whether the continued occupation by French troops of ter-
ritory declared to be past of Switzerland is sanctioned
by the guaranteeing powers, and he should also take the
opportunity of calling the attention of the house to the
dangers threatening the independence of Switzerland.
HER MAJESTY'S STEAMER JACItALL.
Mr. CAIRD said on an early day he should ask whether
it was true that a fisherman had begn killed, and another
seriously injured in Argyleshire, in consequence of shots
fired from her Majesty's steamer Jackall, while at sea, and
also who was responsible for such a proceeding.
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 farce 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 he 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 net 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 o f
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 called upon to give
its assent to a bill abolishing oaths altogether.
Mr. BAINES said he had hoped before ho 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, llindoos, 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 he
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 au honest man. It was
because he objected to such a 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 o .posed the bill, because if it received
the assent of the house it would remove one of the safe-
guards against perjury.
_ _