The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-27 00:00:00

PUBLIC-HOUSES' BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of STRADBROKE, this
Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL gave notice that he should
postpone until to-morrow his notion relative to certain
returns connected with the Medical Charities (Ireland).

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition, signed by
varties affected by the tariff, complaining that the tariff
had been passed without a repeal of the Corn-laws.
AFFIRMATION BILL.

Lord DENMAN rose to move the second reading of
this Bill. His object was to provide a i etnedy for or
defect in the administration of justice as it now existed
in this country. The evil consequences of the present
system, which led in many instances to tho suppression
of truth, were often felt in civil, and still more seriously
in criminal cases. Individuals, notoriously guilty, had
on many occasions escaped the punishment due
to their crimes, because the law required that
evidence should not be received unless it were preceded
by a particular sanction, which wounded the religious
feelings of those who came to depose. Many were of
opinion that crime was on the increase in this country—
that a portion of our literature had taken a most unfor-
tunate turn, tending to inflame the passions and
to deprave the understandings of the working classes.
However that might be, if it were true, as he feared
it was, that crime was largely increasing amonr, us, it
was the more necessary that they should take every
means in their power for its suppression. The sect in
whose favour the Bill he had introduced was
meant principally to apply, was the Baptists a
most respectable body, who amounted to about
100,000 in this country, and to some thousands in
Scotland. A large portion of that sect did not
object to the taking of oaths ; but there were many
of them who felt that objection, and almost all of
them were anxious • for an alteration in the present law.
Again, there were the Independents, also a numerous
sect, many of whom entertained the same scruples with
regard to the taking of oaths. Under the present
system those parties, who, acting according to their
conscientious convictions, forfeited their recognizances,
or underwent a heavy fine, or were sent, perhaps to gaol
instead of the culprit, who was screened from punish-
ment. Was that a fitting state of things ?
A man was sent to prison for refusing to take an oath,
and yet he saw perhaps a Quaker or a Moravian mount
the witness-box to dispose of the lives and fortunes of
their fellow-creatures. The man's evidence was lost
that evidence might have been the the means of saving
an innocent man. If a letter were written to the Secre-
t ivy of State disclosinir and proving this, would he allow
punishment to follow ? He (Lord D.) had received a
book from a gentleman in America, in which it was de-
tailed the persecution of the quakers in Massachusetts,
many being actually put to death. The Govern-
ment of Rhodes Island at last took a di&rent view,
and • they suffered the . Quaker simply to declare ;
plane
now
fasstaheeh people . were beginning to loath that
usets) on account of these persecutions.
In the Act of King Merles the Second it was provided
that Quakers should be transported for life for the hei-
nous offence of refusing to make depositions on oath.
But they triumphed over all this, and in the reign of
William the Third they were allowed to be received as
witne.ses in civil cases. Since that time they had con-
tinual advantages. The Moravians also, who were not a
sect, but an ancient episcopal church, were admitted to the
same privilege, as ,lso were a sect of recent origin. Now
he never heard that in any instance the privilege bad
been abused, and he therefore asked the House to extend
the privilege to all those who entertained conscientious
objections to an oath. He knew that many pe(ple sup-

posed that there were those who had great regard for an •
oath, and cared nothing at ail for truth. He could not
see any reason for thht opinion. On the other hand
it could not be denied that there were persons who were
at all times ready to come into a Court of Justice to de-
pose to.the falsehood upon oath. There was great reli-
ance placed upon the fact which was of frequent occur- ,
rence in the Courts of justice, namely, that when a
witness was going on in a career of falsehood, he was
frequently checked ty being reminded by Counsel that
he was on his oath. But in such cases he was checked,
not by his regard for the sanctity of an oath, but by
his apprehension that he should incur the penalty of
transportation for perjury. He had now stated a case
which he considered would be full of hardship and in-
justice to a large number of most deserving men. Be
believed that the remedy which he had proposed was
efficacious and safe. It. had been suggested that there
ough to be some registration or some precaution against
the abuse of the law by people coming forward oc-
casionally, and claiming the exemption.—(Hear,
hear.) But, as he saw no danger, he could
propose no precaution. The persons on whose behalf he
brought forward this measure, would receive the boon
with gratitude at the hands of Parliament, whatever might
be the precautions with which it should be accompanied.
The Earl of WICKLOW had not intended to follow
the Noble and Learned Lord, but as no one seemed in-
clined to rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill,
he felt it to be' his duty to do so. He was much sar-
prised to find that the Noble and Learned Lord brought
so few reasons why the law upon this sub 'ect should be
changed. The Noble Lord said that a privilege had been
extended to Quakers, Meravians, and Separatists ; but
he (Earl of Wicklow) did not think that that privilege had
been extended to any but any but Qvakers. The Noble
and Learned Lord must recollect that the objec-
tions to taking the oath of a Quaker were inhe-
rent in his creed, but the Noble and Learned
Lord admitted that such was not the case with respect,
to those for whom he pleaded. The cases cited by the
Noble and Learned Lord were imaginery ; he had
proved none. If this Bill; passed, the: consequence
would be that one half the religious community would
object to taking an oath. He (the Earl of Wicklow)
would rather vote for the abolition of oaths altogether
than this Bill. This Bill made a distinction between
oaths and affirmations, exceedingly prejudicial to public
justice.
The Bishop of LONDON said he did not know whe-
ther he could makeup his mind at once as to giving a vote
upon this Bill. It was a question respecting the scruples
of a number of persons and sects. He felt it justice
to the Noble and Learned Lord to say, that these cases
of scruples were not exaggerated by him. 's He knew that
these eases were not imaginary. Be knew many him-
self. He knew one, which was the case of a member of
that profession to which the Noble Lord was an orna-
ment. But he (the Bishop of London) thought this Bill
took too wide a range. He hardly thought they were
yet in a state to give this question proper consideration.
(LEFT SPEARING.)