On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    do not more or less a $ » ct the great aa £ leading prinai ^ . te wKcfea ^ ar ^ te miiii ^ Gourtrof Law to the competency of Witnesses , instead of going to the Jury as observations on their credibility , give rise

    to a number of practical anomalies and absurdities;— # s , for instance , when the story of an artless child , ( the most conv ' mc mg of all testimony , perhaps , ) is excluded by Mr . Justice Parke because , ou his private examination , he doubts her theological proficiency .

    We cannot believe that , if the question comes solemnly to be argued , it will or can ever be decided that a Deist , avowing his belief in a retributive Providence , is an incompetent witness in point of law . It does not clearly appear how the facts stood , or how the objection was taken , in the case mentioned in the petition , of

    Carlile ' s shopman . We shall quote the summary of the law on thlfc head of religions incompefceucy which stands in Mr . Phillipps ' s book on the Law of Evidence , and add a few observations on the propositions on which we suppose the opposition to the reception of this testimony was made .

    The decision in " Omychund v . Barker , " which settled that any foreign infidel avowing his belief iu a retributive Providence is competent to give evidence , we always considered of great importance , conceiving that it settled the principle on a broad basis which would include all persons similarly circumstanced . If belief in Christianity was to be the test , we

    should come round to the old question , which lawyers with equally kindly dispositions to those of Lord Eldon would put , viz ., " What is Christianity ? " And a Unitarian or any other Dissenter might be told by him , " Christianity is our Christianity , not yours . " But we also considered the decision of

    " Omychuud and Barker" ( supposing it to be what common sense seems to shew it was meant to be ) as of great collateral importance , inasmuch as it appear * ed to sap the Very foundation or the doctrine on which the prosecution of Unbelievers rests at common law . There

    is no other foundation for this jurisdiction than a few cases ( decided when no doubt Lord Coke ' s opinion mentioned below Would have been considered law ) in which it wafr held , that Impugning Revelation was an offence , because it was a dissolution of society , inasmuch as it destroyed the foundation on which oaths rested Jewish oaths , Mahometan oaths , Hindoo oathe , Otahelte oaths—in fact , all infidel ( at least d \\ foreign Infidel ) oaths , have ,

    Untitled Article

    V ^^^^^^^ j ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ . ^^^ BJ ^^^^^^^^^^ Bi ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ E ^^^^ E i ' J ^^^^ B ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ B ^^^^^ to . ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ H ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ K 2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hht ^^^^^ P I ^^^^ E ^ I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ B ? * Uiffifift £ awT wfaBf ^ eft Becomes of tfis conwirair ^ law rfactrine which governs the eld cases of prosecution , that are still quoted as the authorities , and the only authorities , for these prosecutions , though the substratum has been solemnly removed ?

    We proceed wlthMr . PhUlipps . —" Atheists , aud such infidels as profess not any religion that can bind their consciences to speak the truth , are excluded from being witnesses . Lord Coke , indeed , says generally , that an infidel cannot be a witness , in which denomination he intended to comprise Jews as well as Heathens ; and Mr . Serjeant Hawkins thought it a sufficient objection to the competency of & witness , that he believed neither the

    Old nor New Testament . Lord Hale , however , was of a different opinion , and strongly points out the unreasonableness of excluding indiscriminately all Heathens from giving evidence , as well as the inconsistency of compelling them to swear in a form which they may possibly not consider binding . ( It were a very hard case , ' he says , * if a murder , committed here in presence of a Turk or Jew , should be dispuuishable , because such anoath should not be taken which the witness

    holds binding , and cannot swear otherwise , and possibly might think himself under no obligation if sworn according to the usual style of the courts of England . * All doubts upon this subject , however , are now removed . In the case of Omychund and Barker ( which came before Lord Chancellor Hardwicke , assisted by Lee , C . J ., Willes , C . J ., and Parker . C . B . ) it was solemnly decided ,

    that the depositions of witnesses professing the Gentoo religion , who had been sworn according to the ceremonies of their religion under a commission in Chancery , ought to be admitted in evidence . And It may now be consfdered as an established rule , that infidels of any other country , who believe in God , the avenger of falsehood , ought to be received here as witnesses ; but infidels who believe not that there is a God or a

    future state of rewards and punishments , cannot be admitted in any case . It follows that , for the purpose of trying the competency of a witness , the proper question is , not as to his particular opinions , as whether he believes in Jesus Christ , but whether he believes in the existence of God and a future state . Iu a case before Mr . J . Buller , where a witness , who had been sworn on the Gospels , was asked whether he believed in the Gospels or which he had been sworn ? die question was objected to , and is

    Untitled Article

    78 lntdligence . ~* Competency of flatnesses not Believers in Christianity .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 78, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/78/