Chap. IV.]

OATHS.

199

the superintendence of the Lords of the Treasury,—in the uni-versities of Oxford and Cambridge, and all other bodies corpo-rate and politic, — in the cases of church-wardens, persons act-ing under various trusts, persons obtaining patents for new inven-tions, and the transfer of the stock of the Bank of England, &c.&c. The declarations must be to the same effect with the oaths,&c. for which they are substituted, and must be subscribed bythe party making them. The wilfully making a false declaration,in any material particular, is made punishable as a misdemeanor.

The oath of allegiance is still to be required as heretofore ;and no changes are made in the administration of oaths in anycourt of justice, or in any proceeding before any justice of thepeace ; but neither justices of the peace nor any other persons,are to administer or to receive oaths and affidavits touching anymatters of which they have no jurisdiction by statute. Voluntaryand extra-judicial oaths and affidavits are entirely suppressed ; butvoluntary declarations, by which written instruments, &c. may heconfirmed, may be received by justices of the peace and othermagistrates. It may be hoped, that this act of the British Par-liament, dictated by an enlightened judgment and patriotism, maysoon be imitated in the United States.

6. In what cases oaths are not binding. When oaths areadministered in affirmance of a promise, they are not bindingwhen the promise itself is not binding ; and when to secure theperformance of a contract, they do not bind when the contractis unlawful, or is for any other cause not binding. Having beforeadverted to Masonic oaths, which have lately caused much con-troversy in this country, and been the occasion of considerableviolence, I will subjoin, that if any of the Masonic or otherextra-judicial oaths shall, in any event, interfere with the duty ofthe citizen to his country, they are superseded by the higher dutywhich he owes his country, —they are not binding. Still I maysay, in regard to extra-judicial oaths in general, that, when theyhave been voluntarily taken, and the obligation which they im-pose is not in itself morally wrong, — that is, does not interferewith any personal, moral, or political duty, — it does not seemright to set them aside, and renounce their obligation, from slightreasons. Especially, when this renunciation is a betrayal of