§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to an inquest held last Saturday at the Britannia Tavern, Lati- 467 mer Road, Notting Hill, by Dr. Dip-lock, at which a gentleman who had been summoned as a juror, and who was stated by the coroner to be disqualified from serving, because he did not believe in the binding power of an oath, was not allowed to leave the court, until the conclusion of the inquest; and, whether his retention was in accordance with the Law; and, if so, with what Law?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the power of the Coroner in such a case would be similar to that of a Judge, and therefore he would be in his right in retaining the juryman. He had communicated with Dr. Diplock, and he found that on a recent occasion, when the question was mooted as to the obligation of jurymen when summoned, there was an objection raised by a juryman to serve on account of his want of religious belief. The Coroner yielded to the objection on this occasion; but shortly afterwards, when holding an inquest in the same neighbourhood, he found that out of the jurymen summoned there was scarcely anyone who had not doubts as to his religious belief. In these circumstances, and in order to prevent such an objection being raised, the jurymen had been retained, so that they should bear the same burden of attendance as those who had no difficulties in regard to religious belief.