COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 July 1869)

LORD DENMAN
objected to witnesses being allowed, as a mere matter of caprice or convenience, to substitute an affirmation for an oath.

§ LORD CAIRNS
took the same view, and said that he had already pointed out on the second reading of the Bill that the 1st and 4th clauses in their present form would have the effect of doing away with judicial oaths altogether. They proposed that if witnesses simply disliked to take an oath they should be allowed to affirm that what they were going to say was the truth. He thought it would be quite sufficient to provide for the case of those who had conscientious scruples against taking oaths, and for the case of those who declared they were so unfortunate as to have no religious belief whatever. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was anxious to encourage a state of feeling which would lead persons to regard a solemn statement as equally obligatory with an oath — and this, no doubt, was desirable; but if the country were to be educated up to that point 988 oaths should be abolished altogether. Now, however much it might be regretted, large numbers of people regarded statements made under the sanction of an oath as much more solemn and requiring much greater accuracy than others. This was shown by the frequent appeals to witnesses by Judges and counsel to remember that they were on their oath, and it was notorious that truth was thus elicited in many cases where it would not otherwise be extracted. If it were left to individual discretion, the witness who at present would not tell the truth unless he was sworn would decline to take the oath; while it would be taken by the witness who in any case would tell the truth— so that those who most required the obligation would escape it. Sometimes the only witness to a particular transaction was a person with no religious belief, upon whom the sanctity of an oath had. no binding effect, and some provision should be made for such persons as well as for those who had religious scruples. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance), who was not responsible for the present form of the Bill, might bring up Amendments on the Report limiting the operation of the Bill to those two classes.

§ LORD PENZANCE
admitted that the effect of the clause would be wider than was intended. He had considered the noble and learned Lord's objections, and as he thought they were well founded he had no objection to introduce such alterations in the clause on the Report as would meet his noble and learned Friend's view.

§ LORD CAIRNS
moved the addition of a proviso, to the effect that the plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of marriage should not be entitled to a verdict unless his or her testimony was corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise.

§ LORD PENZANCE
said, he had not the least objection to the Amendment.