OATH. Oaths have been in use in all countries of which we have any exact information, and it is probable that there is no nation which has any clear notion of a Supremo Being, or of superior beings, that does not make use of oaths on certain solemn occasions. An oath may be described generally as an appeal or address to a Superior Being, by which the person making it engages to declare the truth on the occasion on which he takes the oath, or by which he promises to do something hereafter. The person who imposes or receives the oath, imposes or receives it on the supposition that the person making it apprehends some evil consequences to himself from the Superior Being, if he should violate the oath. The person taking the oath or may not fear such consequences, but the value of the oath in the oyes of him who receives or imposes it consists in the opinion which he has of its influence over the person taking it. An oath may be taken voluntarily, or it may be imposed on a person under certain circumstances by a political superior ; or it may he the only condition on which the assertion or declaration of a person shall be admitted as evidence of any fact.
Tho form of taking the oath has varied greatly in different countries. Among the Greeks (with whom the uplifted hands as if in prayer and the solemn sacrifice and libation marked the religions element, while the placing the hands on the victims or the altars reminded all parties that the deity himself was present, Iliad iii., 276, and iv., 158 ; Aria toph., Acharn, 148; Thucyd. v., 47) the forms of oaths were almost as vsrious as the occasions. Oaths were often used by them in judicial proceed ings. The DicasLe, who were judges and juryineo, gave their verdict upon oath. The Heliastic oath is stated at length in the speech of 1)einosthenes against Timocrates (e. 36). It does not appear that the oath was always imposed on witnesses in judicial proceedings; and yet it does appear that sometimes witnesses gave their evidence on oath : perhaps the oath on the part of witnesses was generally voluntary. (Demostii., near "eeeelov c. 16 ; Kara KOvcevor, c. 10; Meier and Schumann,' Att.' Process., p. 675, and Smith's ' Diet. of Gr. and Rom. Antiq.,' arts. Oath (Greek), and Maprvpfa.) In the Roman jurisprudence an oath was required in some caeca from the plaintiff or the defendant, or both. Thus the oath of calumny was required from the plaintiff, which was a solemn dethusa, tion that he (lid not prosecute his suit for any fraudulent or malicious purpose. The offence of false-swearing was perjurium, perjury ; but it was considered a less offence in a party to a suit when the oath was imposed by a judex than when it was voluntary. It does not appear that in civil proceedings witnesses were necessarily examined on oath ; but witnesses appear to have been examined on oath in the judicia publica, which were criminal proceedings. (1). 12. 2. C. 1. 1. Brie sonii and Calvini Lexie. ' duramentum ;' Bonnier, 'Trait4 des Preuves,' aa 338-378.) Tho law of England, as a general rule, requires all evidence or testimony for judicial purposes to be given on oath, and all persons may be sworn as witnesses who, being questioned on the occasion of taking the oath, will declare their belief in the existence of Ood, in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who will further declare their belief that perjury will be punished by the Deity. This rule
permits all persons, of all religious persuasions, who profess to have the necessary belief, to be sworn as witnesses; and it excludes all other persons from being witnesses. A Jew, a Mohammedan, and a Hindu may be sworn as witnesses, but they must severally take the oath in that form which is sanctioned by the usage of their country or nation, and which they severally consider to be binding. (Omichund e'. Barker ; Willes's 'Rep.' 541, and 1 Smith's Leading Cases.') It follows that a person who avows atheism, or who does not profess such belief as is stated above, cannot be sworn, and consequently cannot be admitted to give testimony for judicial purposes. Children also who are too young to understand the nature of an oath, and adults who are too ignorant or too weak in intellect to understand what is meant by an oath, cannot be sworn as witnesses. The offence of declaring what is false, when a witness is examined upon oath, con stitutes perjury : the particular circumstances which must concur in order that false-swearing shall be legal perjury are stated under that bald. [PERJURY.) Declarations made by a person under the apprehension of immediate death are generally admitted as evidence in judicial proceedings, when properly verified, " for the general principle," says Eyre, C.B., " upon which evidence of this kind rests is, that it is of declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope in this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth." A situation so solemn and awful is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that imposed by an oath in court. (I Leach, 502; see also Alderson's remarks in Ashton's case; 2 Lewin, CC. 147). Quakers also, in all civil cases, were allowed by the statute 7 & 8 Wm. III., c. 34, to give their evidence on affirmation ; and now the affirmation of Quakers, Moravian, Separatists, and others who having been Quakers or 31oravians conscientiously object to taking oaths (3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 49, and e. 82; and 1 & 2 Vict., c. 77), is admissible in all judicial proceedings, both civil and criminaL (See also 17 and 18 Vict., c. 125, e. 20.) When a defendant in chancery is entitled to privilege of peerage, or as a lord of parliament, he is required to give his answer to a bill upon honour only ; and in the case of a corporation, the corporate body defendants put in their answer under their common seal. Other defendants are required to put in their answer upon oath. For other matters connected with judicial evidence, see EVIDENCE.