Lords Sitting of 1 July 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—la. London Bridge and Royal Exchange Approaches; Stock in Trade; New South Wales.
Private.—Reported.—
Lord Southampton's Estate.
3a. and passed:—Duke of Bridgewater's Trustees Estate.
Received the Royal Assent.—Justices Jurisdiction Act Amendment; Copyright; Public Houses; Municipal Corporations (Ireland); North American Colonial Association of Ireland.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Duke of Leinster, the Earl of Mountcashell, and the Earl of Glengall, from Several Charities and Dispensaries (Ireland), against the Medical Charities (Ireland) Bill.—By the Bishop of London, from Colliers and Miners of Dodworth, Wakefield, and Hayland, against Employment of Females in Mines.—By Lord Brougham, from the Liskeard Institution, to Exempt Literary and Scientific Institutions from Rates and Taxes By the Earl of Fingall, from Oldham, to secure Religious Instruction to Roman Catholics in the Army and Navy.—From Inhabitants of York Street, Portman Square, for the Redemption of Tolls on Metropolitan Bridges.

PROTECTION TO WITNESSES (SCOTLAND.)
Lord Campbellsaid, as inquiries had been made from various quarters as o whether he intended to introduce a bill to alter the law of Scotland respecting the examination of witnesses, touching their religious opinions, he begged permission in a few sentences, to state what his veiws

859
and intentions were upon this subject. As introductory to that, he had to state that he did not propose during the present Session of Parliament to bring in any bill to alter the law of Scotland respecting examinations about the religious opinions of witnesses, and for this reason, that after diligent inquiry and mature deliberation, he was convinced that the law of Scotland did not differ from the law of England in affording protection to the character and conscience of those who were summoned to give evidence in a court of justice. He would wait, at all events, till the question was more deliberately considered, and more solemnly determined by the Scottish judges. It had come by surprise upon the two learned judges who presided at the late trial at Stirling. Although they had adhered to the opinion then expressed, they had heard no argument on the case, and the opinion of only one other judge was vouched on the same side. Whether others might not concur, he could not pretend to say; but he had undoubted authority for saying that the judges were by no means unanimous in approving of that exposition of the law. He trusted that if the question should again arise on the circuits, it would be reserved for the decision of all the judges in the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh. To that decision he would most implicitly and respectfully bow. But at present he could not help anticipating that it would be against the admission of extraneous evidence as to the creed of the witness, as well as against an inquisition into his particular religious Opinions. In no Scotch law book was it laid down that such a course could be pursued, and no instance could be cited in which such a course ever had been pursued. He would most respectfully suggest that the mistake might have arisen from the practice pursued under totally different circumstances. When an objection is made to the admissibility of a witness on the ground that he is interested in the suit, or that he has received a bribe, or that he entertains enmity to one of the parties, which could only be proved by malicious acts;—in all these cases a collateral issue of facts is joined which may be tried by conflicting evidence. But whether a man, when he is to be sworn, believes in a God, can only be known to himself and that omniscient Being to whom he is to appeal. Should it turn out that he was mistaken in the view he took of the
860
law of Scotland, he would bring in a bill to alter the law, as it ought not to be endured that in any part of the British dominions any individual, compelled to appear in the witness box might, without notice, be put on his trial for blasphemy. He was informed that Simpson, so harshly treated at Stirling, was, by reason of what then took place, dismissed from his situation as a police officer and utterly ruined, in circumstances as well as in reputation, and, according to that principle, a similar fate might await any others, however eminent and respectable.
Adjourned.