Whoever has frequently been called to give his
voice in determining controversies between man
and man, or between a man and his country,
upon the evidence adduced in a court of justice,
must not seldom have felt that all his doubts on an
obscure question would vanish, if it were possible
for him, instead of listening to the formal and
solemn contradictions of witnesses, to hear the
spontaneous conversations which have taken
place among uninterested persons in the neigh-
bourhood which was the scene of the disputed
transactions. Although in the mass of such local
colloquies, there would doubtless be much im-
pertinent gossip, and much exaggeration, and



^^



PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 121

perhaps not a little wilful falsehood, yet an in-
teUigent and impartial hearer of this common talk
would seldom find it impracticable, by discri-
mination and comparison, to disentangle truth
from the confused heap of words. And almost
always, if he must choose the one or the other,
he would prefer to give his verdict upon a hearing
of the casual evidence to be collected on the
spot, rather than upon the formal evidence ad-
duced in court-
Under the peculiar circumstances of the case,
the oath — or an equivalent to the oath, adminis-
tered to witnesses, cannot be dispensed with : — for
the witness ought in equity to be placed on equal
terms with the party against whom his evidence
is to weigh : — that is to say — he must be made to
stand beneath a penal consequence while he
speaks to the hurt of another. This then is the
real significance and use of an oath in a court
of justice : — every witness is the antagonist^
either of the plaintiff, or of the defendant,
or of the accused, or of the king. — But no man
must be suffered to attack another without
hazard to himself — without a nearly equal hazard.
