The daily republic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1853-1853, 1853-07-09
OatllS.

From the proceedings of the British House of
Lords, on the 10Th ultimo, Gas reported in the
London Times,) we extract the following re-
marks on the subject of abolishing oatlis in GER
tain cases. t
Lord BRoucHAM presented a number of petit
tons, including petitions signed by IS ministers
of Edinburgh, (chiehy of the established church
of Scotland, } by IS ministers of the established
church and dissenting ministers of Glasgow, by
A Baptist ministers in Scotland, by ~ ministers
Of dissenting congregations at Newcastle-upon-
Tyne and from the Edinburgh and Leith Church
Association, in favor of the abolition Of oaths. The
noble and learned lord said that the stated in
these petitions was one which,, he thought, de-
served the gravest consideration OF their lordsps.
By the old law certain sectares were dlsquali-
fled from being examined as witnesses IN any
case, civil or criminal, i'll consequence OF their
conscientious scruples to taking oaths;q but the
law was ut length altered in respect OF three
sects-Quakers, Moravians, and Separatsts. The
members of these sects were in the first instance,
enabled to give evidence in civil cases only, but
the qualification was afterwards extended to cri-
minal cases. Subsequently an act was passed
extending the same privilege, to all persons who
| had formerly been members of those sects, and
who had ceased to belong to them, but who still
retained the same conscientious scruples on the
subject of oaths. This privilege, howcver--if
privilege it could be callcd-of assisting the ad-
forming in that respect their duty to their coun-
try without doing violence to their conscien-
tious religious scruples, was still confined to
the three sects he had mentioned. All other
persons who entertained conscientious Oblec-
tons to taking oaths, and who did not belong
to any of those sccts, yet remained in the predca-
ment of being unable to give evidence, and the
benefit of their testimony was lost to the country
in the administration of Justice, because they con-
scientiously refuse to take oaths. AS these petit
TONERS represented, it frequently happened that
when parties were on their trial, or were taken
before the police for grave offences, the only evil
dence on which they could be convicted in case OF
a trial. or upon which they could be committed in
the case of arrest by the police, was the evil
dence of those respectable and conscentous'per-
sons who were unable to take an oath. The con
sequence was that the guilty parties escaped, and
innocent men were committed for a contempt OF
court because they could not do violence to their
consciences by giving evidence under the obliga-
ton of an oath. These reverend petitioners, how
ever, somewhat understated their case, because,
not only did the present state of the law lead to
the infection of these pains upon innocent and
conscientious witnesses, and to the escape OF gull
ty felons, but it happened, also, that innocent
men were convicted for the want of evidence
which would insure their acquittal, because the
persons by whom such evidence could be given
were precluded from giving testimony upon oath
He Nord Brougham) was the more anxious to state
the case put before their lOruslps Dy THESE PetILoh
ers, because he differed from them to the extent
to which their opinion was carried on the subject
of oaths. He considered that general abroga-
ton of the necessity of swearing witnesses, and
the establishment of a general power of giving
evidence upon simple affirmation, was not a
change which it was expedient to make in our
law, civil or criminal. His noble and learned
friend the late Chief Justice Qord Denman) had,
in l849, brought before their lordships measure
on this subject, which had been introduced in the
House of Commons by the present Vice Chan
cellor Sir w. p Wood, and that bill he lord
Brougham) had felt it his duty to oppose. That
was the only case within his recollection when,
upon any matter, political or legal, he had had
the misfortune to differ from his most learned ana
venerable friend That bill was referred to a Sc
lect committee, and the evidence which was taken
before that body only tended to confirm hlm IN
the opinion which he had previously entertained
respecting the danger of abandoning the security