DECLARATIONS BILL. (Hansard, 3 May 1854)

§ MR. APSLEY PELLATT,
after presenting several petitions in favour of the Declarations Bill, moved that the Bill be read a second time. He said, he had been led to introduce this measure by the concessions which had already been made to Quakers, Separatists, and Moravians, in the substitution of declarations and affirmations for oaths; and had he thought that society bad been in the least injured by those concessions, he should never have thought of carrying the principle of such substitution further. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, when leave was given to bring in the Bill, that there was a certain class of persons who came before courts of justice who would make the declarations proposed by the Bill hypocritically, in order to avoid taking an oath, and so to speak falsely with greater impunity. But that was a class of persons generally the most ignorant as well as the most vicious; and were they for a moment to be put in contrast with the large number of respectable individuals whose tender consciences it was now sought to relieve? The East India Company had some time since substituted declarations or affirmations for the oaths which persons entering their service were formerly obliged to take. The late Dr. Arnold would never have been Regius Professor at Oxford if the University had forced him to take the usual oath. Jeremy Bentham, Dr. Lushington, the late Daniel O'Connell, Dr. Whately, Sir Page Wood, and other eminent men, had expressed themselves, with more or less decision, in favour of substituting declarations for oaths; Richard Alexander, of Leith, had been imprisoned for thirty days for refusing to take an oath, and Mr. Fairbairn, of the same city, for twenty days for the same cause; he therefore thought the time had now arrived when the country ought to be relieved from the cause of reproach arising out of the too common practice of taking oaths imputed by the poet, when he said— And hast thou sworn, on every slight pretence, Till perjuries are common as bad pence; Whilst thousands, guiltiest of the damning sin, Kiss'd the book outside that dare not look within? 1210 He asked no more, by this Bill, than that a large body of his fellow-countrymen and his fellow-dissenters should have conceded to them the same privileges as had already been granted to Quakers, Separatists, and Moravians, and for the very same reasons; and he trusted the House would allow the measure to be read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he willingly admitted that persons who entertained conscientious scruples to the taking of oaths should be relieved from the necessity of taking them; still he could not altogether agree to the Bill of his hon. Friend as it was at present framed. That he did fully admit the proposition that such persons ought to be relieved from the necessity of taking an oath was best shown by the fact that he had joined in the Report of the Common Law Commission recommending this change. There was now before the other House of Parliament, and he trusted that there would soon be before the House of Commons, a Bill making great Amendments in civil procedure and affording considerable relief to witnesses in this particular. It was his intention, with the permission of the House, to introduce that Bill, and he should endeavour also to extend it to criminal as well as to civil procedure. There was, however, this essential difference between the Bill which was at present before the other House and that of his hon. Friend; his hon. Friend proposed to enable a person to make a declaration instead of an oath, upon his mere statement that he had conscientious scruples to oath taking. He thought that that might lead to very great abuse, and he must say that his experience had satisfied him that there were many persons who had a sense of the religious sanction of an oath who were not sufficiently alive and sensible to the moral obligations of a declaration. What he (the Attorney General) proposed was, not, as had been before suggested, to make it incumbent upon persons to register their names before the clerk of the peace or other officer as persons who objected to taking oaths. He thought that that was asking too much, because a man might not be aware, perhaps, of the necessity of such a thing, or, through carelessness, he might neglect to do it; yet the time might come when his evidence might be essential, not to himself, but to some other person, and then in the case of omitting to register 1211 his name he would be excluded from giving evidence in a Court of Justice. What he proposed, by way of a middle course, and which he thought would operate as a preventive to abuse, while it would afford all the relief necessary, was, that if the Judge, or other minister of the law before whom the person was to give evidence, should be satisfied on inquiry that he really entertained conscientious scruples against taking au oath, and did not simulate an objection which he did not feel, then such person should be allowed to make a declaration instead of an oath. He thought that this would be sufficient to satisfy all reasonable expectations, and he trusted that after this assurance his hon. Friend would not consider it necessary to press his measure.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, there seemed to be a perfect agreement in the House that a public necessity did exist for altering the present law. With respect to the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, he would beg to remark that a Judge before whom a witness alleged conscientious scruples against taking an oath was not the proper person to decide whether or no the witness should be permitted to make a declaration, inasmuch as such Judge—and the more so if he were a magistrate in the country—might be swayed by prejudice or caprice to decide against the witness. He thought the witness himself was the party to state the objection which pressed most upon his conscience. What benefit did they expect to derive from the testimony of a man who resorted to thumb-kissing. A man who did that would not hesitate to swear one way or another to suit his own purpose. The scruples against taking oaths were on the increase, and the parties who felt them the most were those who would be most deserving of credit when speaking on their solemn declaration, for, from the very fact of their entertaining those scruples, the obligation to speak the truth would be increased ten-fold on their minds. He thought also that it was desirable, in a public sense, to induce men to be cautious in the matter of taking oaths.

§ MR. DRUMMOND
said, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Bill, as well as the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, had 1212 confounded two things between which there was no real connection, namely, the multiplicity of cases of oath-taking, and oath-taking on fit and proper occasions. Both those hon. Gentlemen, however, seemed to agree in thinking that the moment a man said he had got a conscience he might do what he liked. He wanted to know whether conscience was not a common animal property? If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pellatt) had any doubt of that, he begged him to look, the first opportunity he had, at a dog who had got a bone in his kitchen, and see if he did not come out with his tail between his legs, perfectly conscious that he expected and deserved to be kicked. But the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had said that he would be more disposed to think a man was telling the truth when he gave evidence upon a declaration than he would when he was upon his oath. He (Mr. Drummond) had never met, and never hoped to meet, with such an instance of morbid consciousness as was implied in that statement; but he knew there were a great many people in the world who thought it very conscientious to lie. Then the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion said oaths belonged to the monarchy, and that when the Long Parliament came we got rid of oaths. Thank God, then, we had got a monarchy again. He was quite surprised to find the hon. Gentleman assuming to be so much more philosophical than the rest of mankind. There were people superstitious enough to think that it was an act of reverence to cross themselves, and perform other kindred ceremonies sometimes; but, said the hon. Member, more enlightened people look to something much higher than that. Did the hon. Member ever happen to read anything relating to the mode of conducting trials in India? Did we not all know that there was almost nothing which could be found to bind the consciences of those Indians, and that they would not hesitate to say anything they pleased, unless we could bind them to speak the truth in one particular form? Then the hon. Member quoted Dr. Arnold, and all sorts of other authorities. Dr. Arnold was certainly a great man, in a certain sense, and a remarkably long-headed one. He had a very excellent heart, which seemed to have kept him right; but the monitorial caning—of which we had an exemplification the other day—was no great proof of his good sense. The great objection, however, was, that we had to 1213 deal in all these matters, not with the two philosophers who had brought in this Bill, but with ordinary men; and he was a bad philosopher, or rather no philosopher at all, who thought he could rule the world by philosophy, and not by experience. We knew very well there were men who respected oaths who had no respect for anything else; and we should be parting with one of the safeguards of truth and justice if we were to say that any man might dispense with the taking an oath whenever he taking took it into his head, and said that he had got a conscience. Therefore persons should no be allowed to ride off on the mere crotchet that they had conscientious scruples to taking just and lawful oaths when necessary.