OATH. 
bilhop, from a petty-conftable and the chief-jnftice of 
England. Let the law continue its own lanftions, if 
they be thought requiftte ; but let it fpare the folemnity 
of an oath : and where it is neceflary, from the w r ant of 
fomething better to depend upon, to accept a man’s 
own word, or own account, let it annex to prevarication 
penalties proportioned to the public confequence of the 
offence.” 
That thefe pernicious confequences of frequent oaths 
are not felt only in England, we have the evidence of 
another refpeftable writer, whofe acutenefs well qualified 
him to obferve, whilft his ftation in fociety furnilhed him 
with the beft opportunities of obferving, the effefts of 
repeated fwearing upon the morals of Scotchmen. “ Cuf- 
tomhoufe-oaths (fays lord Karnes) have become fo fami¬ 
liar among us, as to be fwallovved without awry face; 
and is it certain, that bribery and perjury, in elefting par¬ 
liament-members, are not approaching to the lame cool 
ffate ? Men creep on to vice by degrees. Perjury, in or¬ 
der to fupport a friend, lias become cuftomary of late 
years; witnefs fiftitious qualifications in the election of 
parliament-men, which are made effeftual by perjury: yet 
fuch is the degeneracy of the prefent times, that no man 
is the worfe thought of upon that account. We muff 
not flatter ourfelves that the poil'on will reach no farther: 
a man who boggles not at perjury to ferve a friend, will 
in time become fuch an adept, as to commit perjury in 
order to ruin a friend, when he becomes an enemy.” The 
frequency of cuftom-houfe oaths was notorious fo long 
ago as the year 1709. See the Tatler, N° VII. 
Befides the frequency of oaths, we have mentioned the 
irreverend manner in which they are too often admi- 
niftered,asone ofthe caufes which make themcheapin the 
eftimation of thepeople. In this view, the form ofthe oath, 
and the ceremonies with which it is required to be taken, 
are of confiderable importance. “ The forms of oaths in 
Chriftian countries (fays Mr. Paley) are very different ; 
but in none I believe worfecontrived, either to convey the 
meaning or to imprefs the obligation of an oath, than in 
England. In that country, the juror, after repeating the 
promife or affirmation which the oath is intended to con¬ 
firm, adds ‘So help me God ;’ or, more frequently, the 
fubftance of the oath is repeated to the juror by the offi¬ 
cer or magiftrate who adminifters it: adding, in the con- 
clufion, ‘ So help you God.’ The energy of the fentence 
refides in the particle fo; fo, i. e. liac lege, ‘ upon condi¬ 
tion of my fpeaking the truth, or performing this promife, 
may God help me, and not otherwife.’ The juror, whilft 
lie hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right 
hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the Four 
Gofpels. The conclufion of the oath fometimes runs 
‘ So help me God, and the contents of this book ;’ which 
laft claufe forms a connexion between the words and ac¬ 
tion of the juror, which before was wanting. The juror 
then kiffes the book ; the kifs being rather an aft of re- 
' verence to the contents of the book, as in the papifts’ 
ritual the prieft kiffes the gofpel before he reads it, than 
any part of the oath.” This, according to our law-books, 
is called a corporal oath; becaufe, as it lias been com¬ 
monly faid, the party, when he fwears, touches the gof¬ 
pels with his right hand. This opinion, however, lays 
archdeacon Paley, appears to be a tniftake ; for the term 
is borrowed from the ancient ufage of touching, upon 
thefe occafions, the corporale, or cloth which covered the 
confecrated elements. 
The forms of oaths, like otlie'r religious ceremonies, 
have been always various, but confifting for the molt part 
of fome bodily aftion, and of a prefcribed form of w'ords. 
Amongft the Jews, the juror held up his right hand to¬ 
wards heaven, which explains a pafiage in the 144-th 
Pfalm, “ Whofe mouth fpeaketh vanity, and their right 
hand is a right hand of falfehoocl .” The fame form is 
ftiil retained in Scotland. Amongft the Jews, an oath 
of fidelity was taken, by the fervant’s putting his hand 
under the thigh of his lord: (fee Gen. xxiv. 2.) and 
Vol. XVII. No. 1182. 
•357 
hence, with no great Variation, was perhaps derived the 
form of doing homage in Europe, by putting the hands 
between the knees, and within the hands, of the liege. 
Amongft the Greeks and Romans, the form varied with 
the fubjeft and occafion of the oath. In private contrafts, 
the parties took hold of each other’s hand, whilft they 
fwore to the performance ; or, they touched the altar of 
the god by whofe divinity they fwore. Upon more fo- 
lemn occafions, it was the cuftom to flay a viftim; and 
the bead being /truck down, with certain ceremonies and' 
invocations, gave birth to the expreffions irep.vuv o^xov, 
fe.rirepuClum, and to our Englifli phrafe, tranflated from 
thefe, of “ linking a bargain.” 
The following is the law of England upon the fubjeft 
of oaths.-—All oaths mull be founded on the common 
law, or fome ftatute ; if they are adminiftered by perfons 
in a private capacity, or not duly authorifed, they are 
curam nonjudice, and void ; and thofe adminiftering them 
are guilty of a high contempt, for doing it without war¬ 
rant of law, and punilhable by fine and imprifonment. 3 
Injl. 165. 4 Inf. 278. 2 Roll. Abr. 257. 
By flat. 1 Ann. ft.2. c. 9. witneffes on behalf of a pri- 
foner upon indiftments, are to be fworn to depole the 
truth, in the fame manner as witneffes for the king; and, 
it convifted of wilful perjury, fliall fuller the punilhment 
inflifted for fuch offences. 2 Hawk. P. C. 
A perfon who is to be a witnefs in a caufe may have 
two oaths given him : one to fpeak the truth to fuch 
things as the court fliall alk him concerning himfelf, or 
other things which are not evidence in the caufe; the 
other, to give teftimony in the caufe in which he is pro¬ 
duced as a witnefs ; the former is called the oath upon a 
voijer ( vrai) dire. 
A voluntary oath, by confent and agreement of the 
parties, is lawful as well as acompulfory oath ; and, in 
fuch cafe, if it is to do a fpiritual thing, and the party fail, 
he is fueable in the ecclefiaftical court ; if to do a tempo¬ 
ral thing, and he fail therein, he may be puniflied in 
the King’s Bench. 
By flat. 13 Will. III. c. 6. all that bear offices in the go¬ 
vernment, peers, and members ofthe houle of commons., 
ecclefiaftical perfons, members-of colleges, fchoolmafters, 
preachers, ferjeants-at-law, counfellors, attorneys, foli- 
citors, advocates, proftors, &c. are enjoined to take the 
oath of allegiance ; and perfohs neglefting or refufing 
are declared incapable to execute their offices and em¬ 
ployments, difabled to fue in law or equity, to be guar¬ 
dian, executor, &c. or to receive any legacy or deed of 
gift, to be in any office, &c. and to forfeit five hundred 
pounds. This extends not to conftables, and other pa- 
rifli-officers, nor to bailiffs of manors, &c. 
The Oath of Allegiance, as adminiftered for upwards of 
fix hundred years, contained a promife “ to be true and 
faithful to the king and his heirs, and truth and faith to 
bear of life and limb and terrene honour, and not to know 
or hear of any ill or damage intended him, without de- 
fendinghimtherefrom.” See Mirr. c. 3. § 35. Fletaiii. 16. 
At the Revolution, the prefent form was introduced by 
the convention-parliament, which is more general and 
indeterminate than the former; the fubjeft only pro- 
mifing “ that he will be faithful and bear true allegiance 
to the king,” without mentioning “his heirs,” or fpe- 
cifying the leaft wdierein that allegiance confifts. The 
Oath of Supremacy is principally calculated as a renun¬ 
ciation of the pope’s pretended authority ; and the Oath 
of Abjuration, as introduced by flat. 1 3 Will. III. c.6. and 
regulated by 6 Geo. III. c. 53. very amply fupplies the 
loofe and general texture of the oath of allegiance; it 
recognizing the right of Ins majefty, derived under the 
Aft of Settlement, engaging to fupport him to the ut- 
moft of the juror’s power ; promifing to difclofe all trai¬ 
torous confpiracies againft him, and exprefsly renoun¬ 
cing any claim of the defcendants of the late Pretender, 
in as clear and explicit terms as the Englifli language can 
furnifti. This oath mull be taken by all perfons in any 
4 Y office, 
