§ Lord Denmanbegged leave to present the more comprehensive measure to which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had adverted in an earlier part of the evening, at being called for by the withdrawing of the Presbyterian Oaths (Ireland) Bill. It was well known that there were many persons not included in the classes, who by law were exempted from the necessity of taking oaths, who nevertheless doubted the propriety of taking them. There was an instance which immediately presented itself before his mind, that of a gentleman of the name of Wedgewood, a son-in-law of Sir James Mackintosh, who withdrew himself from the commission of the peace on becoming convinced of what he considered the unlawfulness of oath-taking. This conscientious conviction also prevented him from taking oaths as a witness in a court of justice. Now the duty of a judge was very severe in such a case. If a party (not already protected by the law) refused to give evidence in a court of justice, it was the duty of a judge to commit him for contempt of court; and he became liable to heavy fine and imprisonment. There was a probability, therefore, that the testimony of the most conscientious persons might thus be lost to the cause of justice. Nor was that a fanciful danger. He remembered last year a respectable gentleman belonging to the Ordnance-office, who felt reluctant, by his sense of what was right, to come forward and give evidence against an accused person; and the consequence was, that there was the greatest danger that a criminal would have escaped conviction. As the law stood, the Quaker was excused from the necessity of taking an oath; but the conscientious minister of the Church of England was not excused. It was, therefore, that he had added a clause to this bill to the effect that whoever declared in a court of justice that 98 he entertained conscientious scruples on the subject of taking an oath should be admitted to make his verbal affirmation, and that that should be considered as evidence; providing, of course, that if his statement were proved to be untrue, he should be held guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to the same penal consequences as if he had committed perjury. He was not aware whether or not their Lordships would regard this proposition with favour; but in his opinion it would be inconsistent on their part if they refused to pass this clause as well as the first. He would much rather, however, that the question should not be discussed until after the bill had been printed, than that there should be any hurry with reference to a matter of so much importance.
§ Bill read a first time.