The Oath
| Published date | 01 October 1940 |
| Author | Frank W. Martin |
| Date | 01 October 1940 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4001300408 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Oath
By
FRANK
W.
MARTIN,
M.D.
Late
Divisional Surgeon, Glasgow Police
THE
oath to be dealt with in this article is not
"The
smoke of flame and
blood;
the blister of the spirit,
which riseth from the steam of rage, the bubble that shoots up to
the tongue and scolds the voice "
but
the solemn declaration to a superior or divine being, or in
the name of something held sacred, by which the declarant
undertakes either to speak the truth, or promises to do some-
thing in the future, on the pain of calling down on his head
divine or preternatural wrath.
Where the declarant undertakes to speak the truth,
either by affidavit or as a witness in a court of law, then his
oath is described as
assertory,
in contradistinction to a
promissory
oath, an example of the latter being the oath of
allegiance which a foreigner takes when he becomes naturalised
as a British subject.
It
is an established fact that in law, whatever form the
evidence may assume it must be given on oath, except (1)
under the Criminal Law Amendment Act in the case of a
child of tender years, who does not comprehend the nature of
an oath, and (2) under the Oaths Act, 1888, which Act allows
people, who object to be sworn, because they have no religious
beliefs, or hold that the taking of an oath is contrary to their
religious belief, to make a solemn affirmation.
The
passing of
the Oaths Act, 1888, was the result of the agitation of the
famous Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament for Northampton,
who, objecting to the taking of an oath, was allowed to affirm.
The
Oaths Act, 1888, effected the removal of the last of
the tests for Members of Parliament, the others being the
Oath of Supremacy, the Oath of Abjuration, the Oath of
4
15
To continue reading
Request your trial