party. Their is a meanness in a minister's party in a state, but there is dignity in seeing impartiality and justice to the claims of all. party cannot be a minister of state.

OATH-MAKING A VICE.

being attached to a him administering The minister of a

THE practice of oath-making has not been peculiar to any people or religion, but has, as far as we have records, pervaded all people of all religions. Since, then, it has not been the peculiar principle of a religion, but a diffused principle through all religion, it cannot be shown to be essential to the purposes or precepts of any one particular religion, and less so among the adherents to the New Testament, than among any other people; for, in that book, and in that religious book only, oath-making is denounced as a vice, and finds a positive forbiddance.

In the general view which may be taken of oath-making, as connected with all religions, we find, that the principle induced is, that of fear, and whatever is done through fear, which would not have been done in the absence of fear, is viciously done. Thus, upon the highest pretension that has yet been made for the practice of oath-making, that of its being a necessary binding to a purpose, which binding is to be produced by the operation of fear, vice is exhibited, and oath-making is, in its best sense, a vice. It supposes vice in its presumed necessity, and proves it in its practice. It engenders the vice, against which it would be presumed to guard us.

Its necessary connection with the administration of justice is called in question, in the legislative excuse of oaths among the Quakers and Moravians. The principle on which the Quaker and the Moravian stand excused, is, a principle that would justify the excuse among the Infidels, the Roman Catholics, and any other or all other sects. The alleged necessity, and even the alleged utility, of the ceremony was removed, when the legislature first exempted the Quakers; for no principles of religion, will change the fundamental character of mankind, so as to be a pledge against an abuse in a sect, that is otherwise committed among other sects. There stands then an exception to either its necessity or its utility, and as that exception has not been known to work an abuse, the inference is, that the rule is vicious.

The principle of fear aside, the vice of which has been shown, the practice of oath-making is inoperative, and is no more a pledge of truth or good behaviour in the believer, than in the unbeliever. The good man of either party will do well without it; the bad man of either party, will do as ill with it, and each alike, in not respecting that which he professed to respect. It is notorious, as notorious as that oaths are made, that a large number of believers, that nine-tenths of believing oath-makers, have violated their oaths. What can the unbeliever do more, in the worst

4

character that can be imagined of him? But if the practice were removed, and falsehood made as penal as perjury, we should have less of the profession, and more of the practice of truth.

The preservation of the practice of oath-making is then so far vicious.

Where an oath is imposed as a test on a public man, or where it is simply enacted as a pledge that he will do certain duties, observe certain rules, or avoid certain practices, it is vicious in the first instance, and inoperative in the second. In the first, it is the honesty of the man that is proved and rejected by the test, which is, at the same time, the very best promise that he will be a useful public man; and in the second, the promise without the performance is good for nothing, while the performance without the promise is all that can be reasonably desired. Therefore, the keeping of a man out of an office by a testing oath, and swearing a man into an office, are acts alike unwise, unnecessary, and vicious.

In taking an office, a man swears to keep certain observances. If he do, the swearing adds nothing to the observances; if he do not, there is no penalty attachable to a mere negligence of duty in a public office, but dismissal. The swearing means nothing, produces no effect, is a farce made on solemnity, and consequently is idle and vicious as a practice.

Another man is kept from an office by his dislike of an oath: and here the first principle indicated is, that very honesty and energy which is so very desirable in a public officer.

My Lord Duke,-This question of oath-making is becoming every day more serious, and will speedily command legislative attention. The honesty of infidelity, and all that is truly infidel is honest, inasmuch as it represents a love of evidence, in preference to a love of faith, hearsay, mystery, and balderdash. The honesty of infidelity daily increases in boldness, presents itself to. public notice, and alike demands attention, commands respect, and thwarts persecution. Its character is so rigidly honest, and its pretensions so very important, that it must triumph over opposition and faith. I feel as confident of this, as I do that I am not now in Dorchester goal, and my not being in gaol is a point gained, that enhances my position, and proves the presumed merit and positive progress of infidelity.

Are you aware, My Lord Duke, that the best informed men in this country are infidels? Are you aware, that infidelity is necessarily allied to all the first degrees of scientific acquirements? Are you aware, that infidelity expresses knowledge, is the only true indication of knowledge, and has arisen only from or with the rising knowledge of mankind. There was no infidelity in Christendom, when there was no popular Bible-reading, and when scientific acquirement was confined to alchymy and astrology. It is now that we have popular Bible-reading, that we

have scientific institutions which have put down alchymy and astrology, and that free discussion is beginning to be demanded and practised that infidelity rises like a new sun in the horizon, dispelling the mists of superstition and faith. An epistle writer advises us to put on the armour of faith, and fight the good fight. This was an error in judgment. I will correct it, by saying-put on the armour of infidelity, and be with it, what you cannot be without it, a wise, honest, and powerful man.

If the practice of oath-making be continued, as men grow less afraid to avow their honesty in infidelity, as opposed to the established faith, they will exonerate themselves from the serving of all troublesome and unpaid offices in their several parishes, and unwilling evidence will be withheld under pretence of the dislike of the form of an oath. Some men, whether Infidels or not, and the more dishonest are the most likely men to do it, will save themselves from office or unwilling evidence, by a declaration of infidelity on one day, and on the next, to serve another purpose, declare a contrary opinion. It is not necessary that they be Infidels to do this, for real Infidels are the least likely to do it; they will do it, if they are dishonest faith-men or Christians: and you will find no assurance for the due administration of justice, no equality of citizenship, but in treating all men as you treat the Moravians and Quakers, in the entire removal of the official vice of oath-making. So long as this oath-making creates distinctions in society, so long it will be a sheer mischief, an injustice, and viciously effectual.

Nor should you, my Lord Dake, estimate the amount of infidelity by that which is openly avowed. That is but a small portion of the whole, prominent as that now is; but it is the peculiar character of infidelity, knowing the viciousness of religious faith, to shun, by concealment of its principles, that persecution, which, at least, has been inseparable from the Christian Religion in power. Its hopes are in life, and happiness through life, and it has no motive to martyrdom, such as the faith-men have. It therefore prefers concealment to persecution. It is the natural principle of infidelity to avoid persecution, and, doubtless, I should have - so thought and acted, had I not, in my determination to put a stop to the suppression of books, been persecuted before I was an Infidel. That persecution begat a resistance which has grown up together with my infidelity. The government of the country has been the schoolmaster which has made me precisely the character which I now am: and so, beginning to feel some few qualifications to teach, in my turn, as a schoolmaster, I am sufficiently grateful, to offer my gratuitous instructions back to that government. If you are not wise enough yet to enjoy its possession, my Lord Duke, I shall be most happy to teach you, and all whom you may wish to partake with you of my instructions, the sound, the stable, the moral, the irrefutable and irresistible prin

ciples of infidelity. They will, if rightly understood and rightly acted upon, make you a splendid statesman, eclipsing all prior pretensions to statesmanship. We have never seen a spark of hypocrisy proceeding from your Grace, very little, if any, pretension to religion, and from this peculiar standing in your character, a hope has crept abroad, that you may do some good in correcting that dreadful state of things which religion and hypocrisy, and sectarianism have introduced into this country, and into Ireland. Your letter to the Catholic Primate of Ireland has increased this hope. We know you have enough of firmness and decision of character, you have only to evince wisdom and foresight to realize our hopes.

I am sensible of the powers of the Aristocracy and the Church which you have in some measure to consult and to act with; I am sensible of the party and sectarian influences by which you are surrounded; I am alive to all the intrigues of disappointed or expectant ministers, who may desire to thwart you, when you do right, as well as when you do wrong; but all these will prove nothing, if you say, let the sects settle their differences by free discussion; but let there be an equality of citizenship among them. Let us remove the oaths which shackle and offend them, and let us give them fair play in their discussions, that the truth may the more speedily triumph.

The remedy to be applied to this vice of oath-making, will consist of the total abolition of the practice. I have tortured my brain to think of a moral obstacle to this abolition, and I cannot think of one. The abolition of the practice appears to me to be certain to remove a great mass of existing evil, without introducing a particle that is new. I would have the Coronation Oath abolished with the rest, and remove the immoral burthen and test and disgrace, alike from king and people. By such an abolition, the emancipation of the Catholics is settled without an allusion to them as a sect, and so far would I carry the abolition, that I would make an oath penal, as a safeguard against religious or political tricks with the ignorance of the country, It should be a misdemeanor instead of a national custom,

The abolition of oath-making would remove every complaint from the Infidel, in his relations in society, and thus the most intelligent part of the community would be no longer annoyed with the official insults of the most ignorant. A drunken Recorder would not then reject my evidence: because he was unequal to a conflict with my critical acumen, or because I had more knowledge or less hypocrisy than himself. We should not then hear of the evidence of as respectable a tradesman as any in the metropolis being received, in the prosecution of a person, who had robbed him, in one court on one day, and rejected in another court on the next; and then again see that tradesmen called on to serve as a juryman and a constable, notwithstanding such a rejection

of his evidence. We should not then see a person avowedly under a prosecution for an allegement of blasphemy, sitting as the foreman of successive juries in the court of Common Pleas, presenting the inconsistency of putting a man, waiting to take a trial for an imputation of blasphemy, on the judgement-seat with a Lord Chief Justice. We should then have no prosecutions for blasphemy. And if blasphemy were deemed criminal or discreditable to a man's reputation in these days, would our judges have knowingly tolerated such circumstances? Still such circumstances under such laws as we now have are disgraceful to the government and legislature.

The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts is an indication of the good effect that will arise from the repeal of the practice of oath-making. Timid and self-sufficient bigotry had painted to itself all sorts of horrors, as likely to arise from the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts; but what do we find to be the reality of the consequence? Not a complaint has been heard as to the effect of the repeal, and it is now felt to be a silent good ;-it is felt that a disgrace has been removed from the society; and such will be the consequence of the legal abolition of the practice of oath-making. Not a murmur will follow it; not an injury will be felt; no possible mischief that does not now arise, will be added, whilst an increased amount of social harmony will most assuredly succeed the present errors and conflicts about oathmakings. At present, the country is in arms, and actual hostilities are talked of, about the enforcement of oaths; while every clear-headed politician can see, that there will be no abatement of the hostile feeling, but in the abolition of the practice of oath-making. There never will exist a better opportunity, and a more easy means of giving peace to the conflicting parties of a country, than in this of the abolition of the practice of making caths.

In all cases of trial by evidence, there will be the same disposition, on the part of witnesses, if the penalties remain attachable to falsehood, and a jury never judges by the oath, but by the apparent credibility due to the testimony given. The removal of the practice of oath-making from our courts of enquiry, will be to remove a blot that now stains them, An idle charm is uttered, and a dirty book is lipped, with as little feeling as any other animal may be brought to the practice. A trial cannot be witnessed at the Old Bailey, without the perception that the swearing is superfluous, and not useful to guide or correct the evidence to be given. If the oath were valued as giving weight to the evidence, cross-examination would be a very great presumption; for it presumes that the oath has not given weight to the evidence, and that it cannot give it weight.

If we revert to the history of the thing, we shall find that oathmaking has been the property of the most rude states of society