METHODS TAKING THE OATH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13355, 8 December 1906, Page 4 (Supplement)

METHODS TAKING THE OATH.

INTERESTING SUBSTITUTE FOB KISSING THE BOOK. Latklt there has been an almost united chorus from judges in favour of a change in taking the oath in legal proceedings, especially with regard to "kissing the Book," and recently Judge Smyly gave instructions that a Testament kissed by a consumptive patient should he destroyed. The Middlesex and other county councils, With the approval of the magistrates, are supplying Testaments bound in washable xylonite covers, and, in fact, the Bench has generally receded from the position it j took up when a few years ago the medical J profession waged war upon the present toy/.sanitary method of taking the oath. . Indeed, it will not bo long before, considerable changes will be made in taking • the oath in courts and legal proceedings, and it is almost certain that "kissing tie .g Book" will become rave, and the Scotch method of swearing with uplifted hand will become general. . " Be that as it may, there is a world of interest in the. forms of oaths which various members of the British public have to take, . but in spite of this, and in spite of tie; fact that it has been calculated that soffl" sort of legal oath is daily taken by more than 30,000 persons, very little is known about these various forms or the words ..; they contain. Of all the many forms used in our courts, perhaps the most picturesque is that which the Mahometan is required to take. It is a silent ceremony. The son of Islam places his right hand hat upon the Koran and puts the other on his forehead; then he ■ brings his forehead down to and in contact with the book. _ , ' / , He then raises himself and looks tip steadfastly for-some seconds. The officer of the court should though be some- s times forgets this— the Mahometan : "Arc you bound bv the ceremony you ]\>\- performed to speak the truth?" And the answer is: "I am." But it is highly questionable whether we in England .should, administer any such test to a member of the Mahometan creed. In India, at any rate, the ceremony has been abolished in favour of an affirmation.

THE BUDDHIST OATH. The most literary and comprehensive oath in our courts is that administered to the Buddhist. The officer says to the assenting follower of Gautama: "You declare as in the presence of Buddha that you are unprejudiced, and if what you speak ; shall prove false, or if by your colouring truth others shall be led astray, then may the three Holy Existences, ■ viz.. Buddha. Dhamma, and Phro Sangha, in whose light you now stand, together with the glorious Devotees of the Twenty-two Firmaments, punish you and also your migrating soul."

The Parsec places his hand on the Zendavesta and says: "J swear that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, by God, by God omnipresent, by God omnipotent, the God Almighty."

TWO JEWISH VOBMS. There are two forms for Jews—one is the ordinary oath as administered to Christians, but the Pentateuch is kissed instead of the Gospels, and most Jews, though not all, place their hats- on their heads during the ceremony; and the other form runs " 1 swear by the great God of Israel arid five Hooks of Moses to speak the truth, the whole truth, and lung but the truth. So help me, Jehovah."

Quakers, ex-Quakers, and Moravians are. of course, allowed to affirm ; but their affirmations must mention that they do ><> because an oath is contrary to their religious belief; and now anyone may affirm d he will declare that he has no religious belief or that an oath is contrary to his religious belief.

But it is the ordinary' oath with which the great majority of people, are concerned, and the chief objection urged against that oath is the kissing of the Book. In France, Austria, and Belgium the oath is taken practically in the Scotch fashion—that is to say, the Deity is invoked with uplifted hand.

) In Spain, Italy, and in Austria for Jews the witness swears on the Bible or the New Testament, In Germanv the oath i entirely abolished.

England's WAT. But in England alone do we kiss tie* Bible. Nor is the practice ancient. No mention is made of it in the "Book of Oaths," published in 1689. Lord Coke in Ins famous "Institutes," referring to the method of taking the oath in his time, says that the witness touches the Bible. during the ceremony. "It i* called," he says, "a corporal oath because he toucheth with his hand some part of the Holy Scripture." Neither is there-any trace" of . ticcustom in any Act of Parliament or rule ot court or book of practice. It became general towards the close of the eighteenth century, and in all probability this was due to the great efforts made during that century by certain early Bible societies to disseminate the Scriptures throughout the country. ; Oik- step, at any rate, has been made to introduce the Scotch system into England. Ihß Oaths Act of 1888 permits any Christian or Jew to take this oath without allowing any question as to his form of religious belief being asked of him. At that time judges and magistrates did their best to make the Act inoperative, but the Home Uffice issued a strong circular on the subject, and since then the practice has steadily increased.

Alter all. why not? The form is wonderfully dignified. The witness raises his hand high above his head and says: "1 swear by Almighty God (as 1 shall' answer to God at the great Day of Judgment) 1 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." But the days of oaths are passing. Already the oaths, required of some scores of classes of individuals -for labourers, irearer«, ale-taster*, and all sorts and conditions were at one time- required to take solemn oaths to do their work well— • been abolished; and in the light of the universal '' perjury now committed'in our courts, thenis a strong section of. legal reformers who; would imitate Germany' and abolish th« oath us a test of a person's truthfulness.