§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to allow Affirmations or Declarations, instead of Oaths, in certain cases, in Great Britain and Ireland. The measure was intended to redress a practical grievance of which there would be many examples soon, and there had been one already. He contended that an oath added nothing to the testimony of a witness, for before he took the oath he was asked if he believed in its sanctity, and if he chose to tell a he and say he did when he really did not, he was then sworn and his testimony was received; whereas, if he spoke the truth and said he did not believe in it, his testimony was rejected. He thought there was no greater test of a man's fitness to give evidence than his consenting to be made an outlaw in society rather than say what he did not believe. He knew an instance of a gentleman of considerable property now in London, who, knowing these questions were liable to be put to him in a court of justice, was obliged to associate with himself in his business a person who could swear for him. His Bill provided that a person should be exempted from taking an oath on his statement that an oath would not in his judgment and to his obligation to speak the truth.
§ MR. DILLWYNseconded the Motion.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN TRELAWNY and Mr. DILLWTN.
§ House adjourned at a Quarter after Five o'clock.