The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-03-17

scription of the radical leader, in the
face of what it has done. MIR. Holy
oake says;
"There is no precedent in any court
of any person being allowed to make
oath when it was known and admitted
by him that its theological terms were
''unmeaning to him." The meaning
of the oath is a matter of common
knowledge. 1t is never administered
except to those who believe, or profess
to believe. or are believed to believe,
in an Avenging Deity. The news
papers continually report cases IN which
the highest judges and the ordinary
magistrate, alike, question witnesses,
even children, as to whether they know
where they will go to- if they speak
untrulv. If a witness does not believe
that God will punish HIM personally
and seriously for departure from the
truth, or concealmcnt of the truth. such
witness is ordered to "stand down,
and he or she is commonly dis Kissed
in terms of opprobrium and contempt,
as was the case with Mrs. MAIDEN, a
a teacher in Rochdalc.'
This mistake of Mr.. Ilolyoake IS
doubtless that of the house of com
mons. Parliament is another depart
ment of government, and not the judi
ciary. 1t can exercise no judicial
functions. The purpose of the judi
cial office is to administer justice. 10
do this it requires information con-
corning facts, and must have eliectual
means of procuring correct mforma-
ton. Life, character, property, every
thing valuable to man, are in its keep
ing and depend upon its means of do
ing Justice, and this upon the truth of
testimony. Not only does the law re-
uuire it to ascertain with certainty the
belief of its witnesses in future rewards
and punishments, but it makes a judi
cial oath, when false, high crime.
None of this is true of par
lament. 1t has not these or
any like power. A false par
liamentary oath is not perjury.
unless made SO by special statute.
And what is done in English courts of
Justice is no more precedent for the
English house of commons than what
is done by ministers of the sovereign
is precedent. 1t has the right, as we
have said, to determine the qualtica-
tons of its members, but in doing SO
it cannot violate its own rules. Hav-
ing prescribed an oath to be taken it
can only enquire if it has been taken.
1t can have no advantage from its own
wrong if it deny the right to take it.
IF the house of commons designed to
reserve to itself the right of any further
inquiry it has failed to do it. A house
of commons can have no mental res
ervations. 1t does not qualify It's mem
bers by swearing them to any truth. 1t
has provided certain words which II
requires them 10 swear to. Mr..
Holyoke says that the com
mon law has always held
that no man speaks the truth for the
truths sake. But the prccept arose in
the interest Of public justice and does
not warrant the theory of compulsory
truth in parliament. Mr.. Holyoake
also says, fOrCibly, that 4 mans con-
vlctions are not acquircdby choice and
can not be changed at will. But let us
face the naked truth in its broader as
pect. The ancient significance of an
oath, its gravity and solemnity and It's
binding power as a moral and religious
agent, are pretty well gone. There
are thousands Of people in all coun-
tries and Of every social rank, that are