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

AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. P. WOOD having preen t number of
petitions from various ports of the country in favour of this
bill, moved that the house go into committee upon it.
The law as it now stood exonerated from the obligation of
taking an oath not only Osaka's, Moravian', and the small
sect called Separatists, of which, after a most careful search,
he had not been able to discover a single member, but by a
new an, pissed in 1838, all pt nons who ever had been
Q ashen or Moravian' were exempt from the obligation. The
declaration required to be mad, by a person who objected
wassisatiously to the taking of an oath was to this effect :
L. 8., having been one of the people called Qaaken, or
• Mabee of the united brethren called Moravian., do object
M lake the oath." And further than that, there was a mode
of engin posionned out by which a door was opened to all
=lisef- pliable conscience who were not, and never bad
esunected with either of those religions setts to escape
ken the obligation, for the form wee not merely that I, A. B.
belagensor the people sailed Quakers or Moravian', but " I,
' • 3, being of the perenation of the people called Quakers,"
lks. He was bound to say there was a very large body of eon-
s/teatimes people, highly distinguished so far 111 character
and psepsety were concerned, who felt themselves com-
pelled by a literal interireration of scripture, not to invoke
the name of the deity in any matter whatsoever. The con-
sequence of that feeling had been most injurius, not only
to themselves, but to the interests of justice. He rated the
till =two grounds, upon either of which it could not be
impugned—ant, on the right the public possessed to have
the benefit of all parties who could bear testimony; and
next, on the ground of the caressive persecutions to which
Individuals had been subjected, simply owing to the con-
scientious religious objections they entertained to the taking
of an oath. These objections had resulted in the imprison-
ment of one party for no fewer than four years
and a half, and they had caused the imprisonment
of others for periods of three and four months. He asked
the house how they could refuse to extend to the members
of the church of England and to the various dissenting com-
munities the same privileges which they had already granted
to the Quakers, the Moravian and the Separatists? There
was not • single instance on record of any one having been
prosecuted for perjury to whom the privilege had been com-
mitted; how, thin, could they refuse to extend it to those
who happened not to belong to a particular sect ? (Hear.)
He connected that it would be most absurd to argue that
the extrusion of the privilege would operate iejurionaly to
the cause at religion or the church. (lieu, hear.) He was
in • position to show that great evils had resulted to the
public from their inability to obtain evidence in courts of
justice because oaths were imposed. He could show
that the most absurd consequences had arisen by
reason of that imposition, and that instanom
had occurred in which the prosecutor had been
sommitted to prison and the thief was acquitted. A ease of
that kind had occurred at the Old Batley In the year 1832.
In the same year a man was called to prove • charge of furi-
es. driving against a cabman. The man was committed for
ina days for refusing to take the oath, and the furious.
driving cabman was discharged—so that, in that case, the
witness underwent vicariously, because of his conscientious
scruples' the punishment doe to the cab driver. (Hear,
Mar.) If a man now refused to be sworn, the learned judge
immediately asked him whether he was • Quaker, a Mora-
vian, or • Separatist, or if he ever had been a member of
these sects ; and, if he answered in the negative, he was at
ones seat to prison, because he belonged to the church of
England or to some other unprivileged religious
'annually. A Miss Watson, for instance •
lady of great respectability—had been committed to
prison last year on the Western Circuit, because
she could not conscientiously take an oath. The hon. mem.
her having referred to ether cases, observed that the bill
before the house was divided into ism distinct puts—the
first had reference to the grievants. the parties laboured
ands who entertained the conscientious objec-
tion, and the second provided that those who could
not accept any office whatever at present which
required the taking of an oath should regirer themselves,
in order that it might thereby be known for some length of
time that they enter" ained the objection. (Hear.) In the
division which had taken place in that house on a former
occasion on a bill somewhat similar to the present, 17 pro-
fessional gentlemen of the law voted, and 14 of them re-
corded their votes in favour of the measure. In another
place the bill was advocated by the late Lord Chief Justice
and supported by the present Lord Chief Justice of Eng-
land. He (Mr. Wood) did not propose by the present bill
to make it incumbent on the judge to receive testimony in
all cues ; on the contrary, he wished the judge still to exec-
ens that discretion he evinced occasionally now with respect
to the reception of what might appear doubtful testimony.
(Hear.) He wished to strengthen the instances he had
alnady sited, of the evil effects of the law as it stood, by
stating that as the celebrated 10th of April, when everybody
was using his utmost efforts to secure the unladen" of spinal
constables, and when he Wean' wee conducting one young
man to the appointed place fee swearing in, that young man
stopped and said, " I am most anxious to act as a special
instable, but I cannot take au oath." (Hear, hear.)
The bill was proposed to extend, not to the United Kingdom
only, bat also to the colonies.
Mr. OOULBUEN sail he had opposed the bill on the
last omen= it was before the house, and that he had not
heard anything at the present time to alter the opinion he
had the. expressed. The speeds of the boa. gentleman who
had just set down was beaded on one specific argument—
sanely that as parliament lad pained • law to enable
separatist., an insignificant sect, and Moravian*, to
give name& testimony, the house ought to commit the
absurdity of throwing open the gentian altogether. Now
he (Mr. %Altura) maintained that the taking of an oath
had the best effect—that a sense of religion, in such • case,
operated on the minds of all men, however abandoned and
Ignorant they might be, and made them adhere to truth,
and that the obligation of being in the presence of a Se-
=e Beiag, who would punish them if they told • fake-
wandwes a stronger obligation than any mere animation
possibly be. He believed there were many persons
who had se great an aversion to appear at all on a trial as
there were those who disliked the taking of an eeth ;
gad if the penalty for not taking an oath was too
greet, let the honourable gentleman limit it to the
character of the offence. Ilia own experience, coupled with
the experience of others' coafirsod him in believing, that
unless the taking of oaths were Insisted upon as at present,
judges would not obtain that precise and accurate knowledge
of the facts of a case which the imposition of an oath pro.
doped. Every commissioner of taxes knew the effect pro-
duced by the administration of ea oath, and the difference
which very often was found to prevail between the unworn
atatemeat and the sworn testimony. He called upon the
hone to rosolleoc that the bill, if curie!, would produce
an uncertain sods of obtaining evidence of the troth of
fut. is courts of justice—that it would enable jurymen to
decide ayon the live. of their fellow, creatures without being
subjected to any obligation, and that it would empower par-
ties to skim merely, and net to swear, allegiance to the
Quinn. He moved a. an ameadmeat that the bill be eon-
mined that day six months.