§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on 25th February, John Laidler, at Newcastle-on-Tyne Assizes, before Mr. Justice Day, claimed to affirm as a juror is being a person without religious belief, under the Oaths Act, 1888, but that the Clerk of the Court was unable to find the proper form of affirmation, and ultimately partially read an incorrect form of affirmation; whether it is correctly reported in the Newcastle Chronicle of 26th February that thereupon the Court became convulsed with laughter; and whether directions can be given to the officers charged with the administration of oaths in Courts of Justice which will prevent the repetition of such a scene?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)I have made inquiry into this case, and am informed by the Clerk of Assize that some slight delay was occasioned in consequence of 1772 the form of affirmation which should have been used under the Oaths Act, 1888, not being forthcoming, and the Associate having repeated from memory the form applicable in the case of those persons who object to be sworn on the ground of religious belief. The Clerk of Assize, however, informs me that it is a gross exaggeration to say that the Court was convulsed with laughter. The fact is that the case, being the last but one at the Assizes, and it being late in the day, Mr. Laidler was informed by Mr. Justice Day that he might be discharged from the Court, and he then left the jury box. I have suggested to the Associate that cards with proper forms should be kept, as is the practice at the Royal Courts of Justice.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHDo I understand the Attorney General to suggest that there were two forms of affirmation—one for persons without religious belief, and another for persons who desire to affirm rather than take an oath?
§ SIR R. WEBSTERNo; I suggested nothing of the kind. I merely said that the Associate repeated from memory the form previously in use for persons who object to be sworn on the ground of religious belief. I know that there are not two forms of affirmation.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHWas the form in which the affirmation was proposed to be administered the form which was repealed by the Act of 1888? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of that fact?
§ SIR R. WEBSTERI am perfectly aware of it; but the Associate was not the officer who ordinarily performs the duty, and he repeated from memory the form to which he was accustomed. He did his best under the circumstances.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that F. W. Smith, summoned as a juror at an inquest at the Khedive Hotel, William Street, Wakefield, claimed to affirm under "The Oaths Act, 1888," as a person without religious belief; but that the coroner, Mr. Taylor, refused to allow Mr. Smith to affirm, declaring that there was no Act authorising such affirmation; and whether any steps can be taken to make the coroner give effect to the law?
§ SIR R. WEBSTERThe following is the information which has been given to me by Mr. Taylor, the coroner of Wakefield:—
At the holding of the inquest in question a person, whose name he did not know, and whose name was not mentioned, said, 'Mr. Coroner, I am summoned on this inquest; I object to take an oath; I am an atheist.' The Coroner then replied that there was no necessity to make any such statement; that Acts had been passed to enable Quakers and others to affirm, but that there was no Act enabling an atheist specially to do so; and that if the person wished he could make an affirmation under the provisions of the recent Act. The person in question did not claim to affirm or mention any Act of Parliament to the coroner. As there were 12 jurymen without him, the coroner told him that his services would not be required. The name of F. W. Smith did not appear in the list of persons summoned as jurors upon the inquest.