generally, abolish oaths at the admission into any office ecclesiastical or secular. All persons, on taking upon themselves those duties, to the due discharge of which they are now bound by their oaths, might be then required only to promise to discharge the duties of the office faithfully*. Or rather I would say, that no man should ever be called upon even to promise to do what he is bound by the duties of his office to perform; on the contrary, it should in every way be declared, that every man has already promised to do his duty by the very act of accepting an office.

2. I could wish, secondly, either some declaratory law to be passed, or some authoritative directions to be given, to prevent the administration of "voluntary oaths." They are administered by magistrates throughout the kingdom; many voluntary affidavits also are sworn before Masters in Chancery†. Judges,

* Puffendorf quotes from Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, an account of the "grossly ridiculous" practice prevalent at Rome on the death of a Pope."During the vacancy of the Holy See, the cardinals are wont to draw up a form, consisting of so many heads, for the reformation of the papal government, which each of them swears he will exactly observe, should the election fall on him. Though the experience of all ages testifies that not one of them stands to the engagement; inasmuch as immediately after being chosen pope, they declare that either they could not be tied by such bond, or that their very investiture with that dignity quite releases them from the obligation."

The practice is now very much discountenanced.

both in the House of Lords and elsewhere, have declared that they are illegal; still they continue to be administered. I was not however aware, till I was led, in the course of my present inquiry, to learn that the administering of any oath of this kind was a misdemeanour, subjecting the person who should administer it to punishment. Such, however, I find it to be. Sir Edward Coke says expressly, "Oaths that have no warrant by law, are rather nova tormenta than sacramenta; and it is a high contempt to minister an oath without warrant of law, to be punished by fine and imprisonment." This wholesome restraint seems to have fallen into desuetude. If I might do so, without presumption or offence, I would most humbly and respectfully suggest to the judges of the land, that a clear and explicit statement of the law in this respect, by way of caution to magistrates, might fitly be introduced into their charges to the grand juries. If this notice were taken by those learned men simultaneously, I feel assured that the evil would be very greatly, if not altogether, abated through the kingdom. And a more prolific field (though perhaps it is not a very wide field*) of perjury does not I believe exist, than the custom of administering voluntary oaths and affidavits.

* A police magistrate, however, with whom I have conversed on the subject since this sheet was sent to the press, spoke of persons coming together in crowds into his office to swear to the loss of pawnbrokers' duplicates.

CHAPTER X.

THE UNIVERSITIES.

No right-minded and considerate man, though personally a stranger to those venerable establishments, if influenced solely by the desire of doing good, would touch with any other than a tender and delicate hand such of their faults as may arise solely from a tardiness in correcting ancient errors, and discontinuing regulations, which by lapse of time have ceased to be applicable. And entertaining, as I do, for both our Universities sincere regard and reverence, and for Oxford sentiments of heartfelt affection and gratitude, I would not consciously utter a word which even an enemy could construe into an unkind reflection. Consistently, however, with the principles which I have professed in my opening chapter, I could not pass over in silence this branch of our subject.

I would then, in the third place, recommend the abolition of all oaths administered to members of our Universities as such. And I speak this not without having had ample opportunities of witnessing the workings of the present system. After a constant residence in Oxford through every term of one-andtwenty years, during which I necessarily became acquainted with the feelings and sentiments of per

sons of every age and academical rank, I am persuaded that a most material change is still desirable in the Universities: I speak with less confidence of Cambridge than of Oxford. In Oxford, within these last few years, much improvement has been effected; many antiquated oaths have been repealed; and very grateful ought we to be towards those who were instrumental in bringing about so desirable a change. But much still remains to be done. Indeed, after seriously weighing the matter in my own mind, and after a free and friendly interchange of sentiments with others, better able to form an opinion than myself, I can say that, without making a single exception, I am not aware of one oath administered by the University of Oxford to her members as such, which might not with safety be abrogated. I am not aware of one that is necessary. Many, doubtless, may conscientiously take a totally different view of the subject, but this I will be bold enough to say, that no one consults the honour of God, or the credit of the church to which he belongs, who is not desirous, within his sphere, and with the best exertion of his faculties, to put an end to every oath, the necessity of which is not evident. The words of Augustin, when justifying a Christian in taking an oath if compelled to do so, speak directly and awfully to all persons, who being in authority, and having the means of promoting a better state

of things, yet still countenance the practice of requiring a single unnecessary oath. "It cometh of evil." "Si non a malo jurantis, a malo est non credentis. A malo est quod facis, sed illius qui EXIGIT." Whatever is more than a simple promise, or the bare passing of one's word, springs from evil; not perhaps from the fault of the juror, but of him who REQUIRES THE OATH.

I cannot reconcile myself to the Matriculation Oath*: it is, I fear, not unfrequently a snare to the consciences of the young. I can speak from experience, that the administration of this oath has often a mischievous effect; unfairly distressing the consciences of some, and diminishing in others their general reverence for an oath. The Evous, or interpretation of the oath, is not read by one in a hundred of those who take the oath; and were it read by all, it would be of little or no service. It leaves the oath very much as it would be without

* Objections to the Matriculation oath seem to have been urged by divines from time to time. Christopher White, to whose sermons at St. Mary's we have already referred, in 1627, appeals from the pulpit to the Governors of the University to be "merciful to other men's consciences.""Is there not," he asks, “an especial care to be had by those who frame this bond, not to require it, but where the weight of the thing may claim it?" The preacher's objections however seem directed chiefly against exacting an oath of obedience to the Statutes, whilst they were not published, but studiously kept hidden.