Very little publicity has been given to the following important
alteration in the criminal law of evidence. It is somewhat remarkable that there should so long have been a distinction between the criminal and the civil law. In criminal cases a Quaker's affirmation was not received, and many a rogue thus escaped punishment. By an Act passed in the last session of Parliament, 9 Geo. 4, Cap. 32, entitled An Act for Amending the Law of Evidence in certain cases, it is enacted, "that every Quaker or Moravian who shall be required to give evidence in any case whatsoever, criminal or civil, shall, instead of taking an oath in the usual form, be permitted to make his or her solemn affirmation or declaration in the words following, that is to say, I, A. B. do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm ;' which said affirmation or declaration shall be of the same force and effect in all courts of justice, and other places where by law an oath is required, as if such Quaker or Moravian had taken an oath in the usual form ; and if any person making such affirmation or declaration shall be convicted of having wilfully, falsely, arid corruptly affirmed or declared any matter or thing, which, if the same had been sworn in the usual form, would have amounted to wilful and corrupt perjury, every such offender shall be subject to the same pains, penalties, and forfeitures, to which persons convicted of wilful and corrupt perjury are or shall be subject."
Previous page
