Titus 1649-1705 Oates

The "judicial'' oath taken by judges of the court of appeal or of the High Court of Justice, and by justices of the peace, is "to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will." Jurors are sworn, whence indeed their name (iuratores), in felonies the oath administered is : "You shall well and truly try and true deliverance make between our sovereign lord the king and the prisoner at the bar whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give accord ing to the evidence." (See JURY.) The oath of the jurors in the Scottish criminal courts is : "You [the jury collectively] swear in the name of Almighty God and as you shall answer to God at the great day of judgment that you will truth say and no truth con ceal in so far as you are to pass upon this assize." In the ancient custom of compurgation, once prevalent in Europe, the accused's oath was supported by the oaths of a number of helpers or com purgators who swore to their belief in its validity.

Witnesses in English law courts must give their evidence under the sanction of an oath, or of what is equivalent to an oath, and the ordinary form of oath adapted to Christians is: "The evidence you shall give . . . shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth ing but the truth. So help you God." Many alterations of the English law as to oaths have been made in relief of (I) those Christians who object on conscientious grounds to the taking of an oath, and (2) of those persons who refuse to admit the binding force of an oath. Special provision was first made for Quakers, Moravians and Separatists ; then followed general enactments relating to civil and criminal proceedings respectively, till finally the law was embodied in the Oaths Act 1888, which enacted that "every person upon objecting to being sworn, and stating, as the ground of such objection, either that he has no religious belief, or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief, shall be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath." . . . The form of affirmation prescribed by the Oaths Act was as follows: "I, A. B., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm," etc. Under s. 5 of the same act a person might swear in the Scottish form, with uplifted hand (no book of any kind being used) and if he desired to do so "the oath shall be administered to him in such form and manner without question." With the desire of making universal the method of administering the oath the Oaths Act 1909 was passed. A Christian swears on the Gospels, holding a copy of the New Testament in his uplifted right hand, the hand being uncovered, and his head being also uncovered. A witness may elect to be sworn on any version of the Bible which he considers most binding on him, as a Roman Catholic on the Douai Testament or Bible. A Jew is sworn on the Pentateuch,

holding a copy thereof in his right hand, the head being covered. A Mohammedan is sworn upon the Koran. He places his right hand flat upon the book and puts the other hand upon his forehead, bringing his head down to the book and in contact with it. He then looks at the book for some moments. Buddhists are sworn on the Buddhist doctrines, Sikhs upon the Granth, Parsees upon the Zend Avesta, Hindus upon the Vedas, or by touching the Brahmin's foot, and, according to caste custom, Indian witnesses sometimes insist upon the oath being administered by a Brahmin ; but in India witnesses now generally affirm. Kafir witnesses swear by their own chief, and a Kafir chief by the king of England. When a Chinese witness is to be sworn, a saucer is handed to him which he takes and, kneeling down, breaks into fragments.

The administering or taking of unlawful oaths is criminal in English and Scots law. Statutes relating to the offence were passed in 1797, 1799, 1810 and and it is evident from the preamble of the latter act (Unlawful Oaths Act 1812) that they were aimed at those societies in the United Kingdom at the time of the French Revolution which required or permitted their members to take an unlawful oath. Supplementary statutes were passed in 1817 and 1837. Children of tender years, who, in the opinion of the court, have not sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of an oath, may give evidence without being sworn.

United States.

In the United States oaths required by way of qualification for public office or citizenship are generally pre scribed by constitutions or statutes. At an early date provisions were made for simple affirmation for the benefit of those whose religious faith proscribed the taking of an oath. Witnesses in the law courts or before legal or administrative officials invested with the power of administering oaths must give their evidence under oath or by affirmation. Belief by the witness in a God and an appeal to him as an avenger of falsehood are the essentials of the oath. Liberal allowances may thus be made for the taking of oaths by non-Christians, the witness being sworn in such fashion as he considers binding on his conscience. Professed atheists have on occasion been excluded from the witness stand, but generally the religious belief of a witness can only be used to impeach his credibility. No special form need accompany the administration of an oath, unless required by statute, provided that some formal act be done to impress the witness with the distinction between sworn statements and bare assertions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY..---Coke's

Institutes; C. Ford, Handbook on Oaths (1876, ed. by F. H. Short, 1903) ; F. A. Stringer, Oaths and Affirma tions (3rd ed., 191o) ; H. J. Stephen, "Commentaries" (18th ed., 1925). (See also articles AFFIDAVIT ; EVIDENCE ; WITNESS.)