The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-15 00:00:00

spinsters, before whose names the magic stars are
affixed in the list of proprietors—for that he enters
into frivolities that he must, if really qualified for
the duty, despise in his soul ; and fawns and
flatters, and (when necessary) promises all that
may be required at his hands.
And how is the patronage thus acquired exer-
cised ? Are the most worthy selected, or those
who possess, in the distinguished services of near
relations, strong claims on the country ? Far
from it. There are, of course, exceptions to every
general rule, and there have been instances of
disinterested and liberal conduct that reflected the
highest credit on the parties concerned. But, as a
general rule, the exercise of the patronage is just
what might be anticipated, from the manner in
which the privilege is obtained; that is to say for
the benefit of friends and relatives, fitness for the
situation, or in redemption of promises made
while canvassing, or possibly for even a worse rea-
son—and this is the system which it is intended
to continue for ten or twenty years more without
awaiting the result of the pending inquiry, or
hearing the evidence on the part of those chiefly
concerned. This cannot be, and shall not be.
The nation will not tolerate such a proceeding,
nor sanction a renewal of the Charter save from
year to year, until the necessary information has
been obtained to warrant permanent and benefi-
cial legislation.

A Peer's word is his oath. He swears by his
honour ; every other man must swear by his
GOD. What is the interpretation of this ? Is it
that a Peer worships his honour as a God, or that
other men worship their GOD no more than a Peer
does his honour ? Is an appeal to his honour the
form of oath most binding on the conscience of a
Peer, and an appeal to GOD over the Bible the
form most binding on all other persons ? It were
singular if a patent of hereditary nobility imparted
to the line of heirs male this kind of Quakerish
view of oath-taking. The least, however, we can
expect in any case of the House of Lords is, that
they should have considerable hostility to judicial
swearing; or that, like members of the Society of
Friends, Separatists, &c., they should be peculiarly
open to conviction on the subject of abolishing
oaths. They, by constant practice, • well under-
stand how binding is a solemn declaration. The
Noble Lords, exalted as is their position in the
State, will not pretend that morally and religiously
they " are not as other men are." Even the
Lords Spiritual would resent the supposition that
the conge d' elire and its consequences had made
their word of more value than it was before ;
equally, we suppose, would all the Lay Lords
affirm that their word was as good as their oath
till the hour that they were called to the Upper
House. Why, then, should not the practice of
the Peers become the universal practice ? Privi-
lege we will not call it; that were an insult to the
veracity of all other men. As we have hinted
above, nothing but deifying their honour, or
cherishing the most loathsome self-righteousness,
could induce Noble Lords to assert any peculiar
fitness to be trusted on their word, as other men
are upon their oath. We should not, therefore,
regret to abolish oaths entirely, to put all men
upon their honour, and, in case of their violating
a solemn affirmation, to inflict the severest penal-
ties now appropriated to perjury. It must tend
to raise every person's estimate of the importance
of truth, and to increase his jealousy for the
regard paid to his word, if he found his word
treated as sacredly as an oath, and its violation
entailing all the social consequences of oath-
breaking.
This is, indeed, the point to which Christianity
would bring us. Admitting that a literal inter-
pretation of its twice-repeated precept, " Swear
not at all," may be an overstrained one, we must
yet all perceive that the reason by which our LORD
condescends to enforce His command, is substan-
tially, that our word should be equal to our oath ;
that our yea should be yea, and our nay, nay.
It is as much the genius of Christianity to abolish
oaths as to abolish slavery. Few Englishmen
now doubt that its principles forbid the latter ;
but direct precepts apparently, as well as prin-
ciples, may be pleaded against taking an oath.
We must think, therefore, that the highest respect,
instead of bonds and imprisonment, is due to
those who, on conscientious grounds, object to
oaths. If but a scruple, it is one so perfectly
natural. It is not a mere constructive interpre-
tation of Scripture. It is, indeed, the party who

requires another to swear that has to construct a
case to make his demand even plausible in the
face of the plain prohibitions of the New Testa-
ment. At the present day, therefore, it is almost
universally felt, that punishing persons for de-
clining to swear, or refusing to accept their affirma-
tion, is a real case of religious persecution. No
Court of Justice likes to do either ; and the law is
become equally at variance with the feelings of
its administrators and the conscience of the wit-
ness. It is obvious, of course, to enlarge on the
inconsistency of permitting sects to plead con-
. _

science in bar of oath-taking, and not permitting
individuals to do so ; but we wish rather to argue
the question on its merits, and we contend, and
we think no one can deny it, that there is a broad
prima facie case from the Bible in favour of the
most conscientious scruples against taking an oath.
The more simply, the more unconditionally, the
more reverently a man accepts the language of the
New Testament--the more likely is he to think
oaths unlawful for Christian men.

If, therefore, we retain oaths in our courts of

justice and elsewhere, we are bound by all the
principles of religious toleration, and respect for
the rights of conscience, to indulge the scruples of
those who deem them unlawful. We are hardly
less bound by the interests of justice itself. If
we succeed by penalties in compelling a person to
take an oath in violation of religious scruples, of
what value is his evidence ? We ourselves have
already sapped his conscience. We have com-
pelled him, as he conceives, to disobey his GOD,
by compelling him to appeal to his GOD ; and, after

that, are we to use his testimony as evidence ? If
we do not succeed in getting him to swear, we
lose his evidence, our laws not permitting us,
except in the case of a few sects, to receive it on
the only terms on which he feels at liberty to give
it. But if, again, we give the recusant, on consci-
entious grounds, full scope, we gain everyadvantage.
For, in the first place, we are never compelled
to take his evidence for more than it is worth; it
can do us no harm therefore. Next, we have the

witness before us, and have every opportunity of
judging from his aspect, manner, tone of voice,

and every little circumstance, what kind of a wit-

ness he is. Indeed, we generally, in point of
fact, rely more on the bearing of a witness, under

cross-examination especially, than on his oath ;

but, lastly, the probability is that we obtain

witness rigidly, we might almost say morbidly,
truthful. It is but the dictate of common sense
that a person timid about violating the letter of

his LORD'S commands will be equally so about

violating truth itself. The result of the most
ready indulgence of religious scruples on this sub-
ject, therefore, is, that we can lose nothing, that

we probably gain a valuable witness, and that we

act consistently with English sentiments of Re-
ligious Liberty.
s
We are convinced, moreover, from numerous
remarks which we have heard, that a great many
persons, of
peculiarly
d
t character, cftoennm.
r, haveihiv beeehn
asllo
swear-
ing with the
have t
is forbidden,
one, especially especially
as to be led to wish for exemption
haluno, rdry b
an oath, although their scruples
from
such as to warrant them
in declining n
at the spur of
the moment.
This is, we believe a large,
and of course a
,conscientious,, class of men. Their
language would be,
asalthough we do not absolutely
refusent
in to
onr swear,
and
floating
things are, seldom or never
m
doubts, yet on religious
e 0
whatsoever
grounds we should prefer nota.s ,t,::,
we think, will deny that, No one,
of faith is sin," even this measure of doubtveT is not
on grounds of Religious Freedom, be carefully inii;rse_t,
spected.
We are, of course, gratified with the turn taken
by the debate on Mr. PELLATT'S motion ; and after
Mr. GLADSTONE'S assurance that the Law commies
sion were "dealing with the subject .in a manner
that promised to be comprehensive and effectual,"
we could not wish Mr..P=ATT to press- the mo-