The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-25 00:00:00

ITha parties having a scruple about taking an cath were
liable to be committed to prison in the event of their
refusing to do so in courts of justice; and they could
not sit on juries or hold most of the civil offices of the
State without doing violence to their consciences. The
present Bill relieved only the conscientious, and
a man had only to say that he was a Mcravian or
a Quaker, and objected to take an oath, whenever he
might be called on to do so, and he would be relieved
from the obligation, and the judge would allow him in
such cases to substitute an affirmation. He knew of
a case in Honduras where a Dissenting minister had
been confined for a period of six weeks for
refusing to take an oath, and other persons in that
colony were fined very considerable sums of money
for the same offence. Taking all those circumstances
into consideration, he hoped the House would not object
to this Bill going into Committee.
Mr. GOULBURN opposed the motion that the
House should go into Committee on this Bill. He main-
tained that a man engaging to speak the truth under the
solemnity of an oath, and knowing that he would be
punished here and hereafter in the event of his perjuring
himself, was more likely to give true evidence,
in courts of justice, than a man who merely
made an affirmation or a declaration. The Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman proposed to leave it
to the option of the judge to decide whether a witness
should be sworn or not, but such a practice would be at-
tended with the greatest difficulties, and he thought
would not further the ends of justice.—(Hear, hear.)
The great majority of magistrates engaged in
the administration of justice thought the taking of
oaths was essential to the ascertaining of the truth, and
that they would not be able to obtain from witnesses;
that precise state of facts which they would give under
the imposition of an oath. The general tendency was
not to adhere strictly to the facts when a person had
simply to give a conversational account of anything which
had taken place. He concluded by moving that the Bill
be committed this day six months.
Mr. COCKBURN hod made up his mind to support
this Bill, though he believed the oath was one of the
safeguards to the due administration of justice;
but he supported the Bill, because he felt
that many persons were precluded from giving evidence
by the law as it now stood. Many persons professing
particular faiths were already relieved from this obliga-
tion of taking an oath, and he put it to the Right
Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down
whether it would be right to withstand
that concession. Well, then, if these persons were enti-
tied to this privilege because they entertained conscien-
tious convictions against the taking of tin oath, why
should not the man, although he belonged to an
other sect, who considered it opposed to his religious
duty to take an oath, be placed upon a similar footing?
It was nonsense to tell him that a man might escape
justice by putting evidence on oath against evidence given
on affirmation, because the same argument told as much
against the existing system as against the proposed change.
But while he approved of this Bill, he thought it ought
to be accompanied with a provision which should make
it the duty of a judge to satisfy himself that
the parry wishing to give his evidence by
way of affirmation really did entertain conscientious
objections to the taking of an oath before he consented to
absolve him from that obligation.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendment, and
declared it to be his conviction that, if this Bill passed,
in many instances justice would be defeated by parties
who were now restrained from giving false evi-
dence by the sanctity of an oath. It was too
bad that at the bidding of a nondescript section
of society to pass a law which could remove no diffi-
culty, but would have the effect of encouraging perjury.
Sir EDWARD BUXTON would be glad to know
from the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down if he
knew of any instance where evidence which bad been
given upon affirmation had afterwards turned out to be
false? It was a singular fact that no such cases could
be found; and as justice was ott?n frustrated by the
operation of the existing law, Le was at a loss to und,r-
stand why its reform should be objected to.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ... 129
Fur the amendment ... ... 148
Majority ... —l9
The announcement was received with loud cheers.
The Bill was consequently thrown out.
SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.

The amendments to this Bill were considered and
agreed to, after a short discussion.
Colonel BOYLE presented a petition from Frome
against church-rates.
COLLECTION OF FEES BY STAMPS (COURT
OF CHANCERY).
The House went into Committee, and a resolution for
founding a Bill for the collection of fees by stamp (Court
of Chancery) was agreed to.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of an Hois. ISIEmnEn a new writ was
ordered to issue for Lymington, in the room of the Hon.
G. T. Keppel, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

KIDDERMINSTER ELECTION
COMMITTEE.

The Committee appointed to try the merits of the pee-
tion presented against the return of Mr. Best, for the
borough of Kidderminster, re-assembled at the usual
hour yesterday; Mr. Bouverie in the chair.
Mr. Sergeant KINGLARE intimated at the sitting of
the Committee, that the case for the petitioners closed
with yesterday's evidence.
Mr. JAMES, Q.C., on the same side, summed up the
evidence at some length, insisting that it sustained the
allegation of the petitioners, that the election of Mr.
Best was carried by bribery and treating.
Mr. ALEXANDER afterwards addressed the Committee
at equal length on behalf of the sitting Member, an-
nouncing that it was not his intention to call rebutting
evidence, as he did not think the petitioners had esta-
blished any case against his client.
The Committee, under these circumstances, intimated
that they should adjourn till to-morrow (this day) at
two o'clock, when they would be prepared to give their
decision.

THE NATIONAL REFORM CON-