Earl of Northumberland be sent for, and let him
forthwith be made to take the oath, as he hath
declared he will if we all consent to all that he
hath said.' Then was the earl, without further
parley, called; and the king said to him,
'Northumberland, the duke hath sent you hither to
reconcile us two; if you will swear upon the
body of our Lord, which we will cause to be
consecrated, that the whole of the matter related
by you is true, that you have no hidden design
therein of any kind whatsoever, but that like a
notable lord you will surely keep the agreement,
we will perform it.'. . . Then replied the earl,
'Sire, let the body of our Lord be consecrated;
I will swear that there is no deceit in this affair,
and that the duke will observe the whole as you
will have heard me relate it here.'  Each of
them devoutly heard mass; then the earl, without
further hesitation, made an oath on the
body of our Lord. Alas! his blood must have
turned, for he well knew the contrary."

Paley distinctly states, as his opinion, that the
term "corporal," as applied to an oath, is
derived from the "corporale," the square piece of
linen upon which the chalice and host were
placed. This opinion is open to challenge.
Touching the book implies contact of the body
with it. At a very early period the soldier
swore by his sword. There exists an Anglo-
Norman poem on the conquest of Ireland, by
Henry the Second, in which we find:

Morice par sa espé ad juré,
N'i ad vassal si osé.

Dr. Owen, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, being a
witness for the plaintiff in a case, refused to be
sworn in the usual manner, by laying his right
hand upon the book, and by kissing it afterwards;
but he caused the book to be held open
before him, and he raised his right hand,
whereupon the jury prayed the direction of the
court whether they ought to weigh such
evidence as strongly as the evidence of another
witness. Glyn, chief justice, answered them
that in his opinion he had taken as strong an
oath as any other of the witnesses; but he
added that, if he himself were to be sworn, he
would lay his right hand upon the book itself.
This case shows that the usual practice at the
time it was decided was, not to take the book
in the hand, but to lay the hand upon it. Now,
if a person laid his hand upon a book, which
rested on anything else, he most probably would
lay his fingers upon it; and if he afterwards
kissed it, would raise it with his fingers at
the top and his thumb under the book;
and possibly this may account for the practice
in Wales.

Another point is, whether kissing the book is
essential. The point is lucidly put by Lord
Mansfield. According to the principles of common
law (he says), there is no particular form
essential to an oath to be taken by a
witness; but, as the purpose of it is to bind his
conscience, every man of every religion should
be bound by that form which he himself thinks
will bind his own conscience most.

Not long ago, in the Insolvent Debtors'
Court, a witness, on being called, took the
Testament in his left hand. He was told to
take the book in his right hand. Commissioner
Phillips said he did not see it made any difference,
nor did he see why a glove should be
taken off. Perhaps he thought the kiss more
essential than the touch. Two questions arise.
Can the touch of the book with a glove form a
corporal oath? Is the touch of the naked lips
equivalent to that of the hand uncovered?
How often have witnesses shuffled out of the
stringency of an oath by the ingenious device
of kissing the thumb or the cuff of the coat in
place of the book itself? We are forcibly
driven back into the arms of St. Matthew,
Yes or No distinctly spoken in the presence
of a certain fixed number of men, or a man's
signature to "I swear that I have told the
truth," would suffice for all purposes when once
admitted as legal; if perjured, let him take the
legal consequences.

We now come to what may be called the
Individual Oath—the oath which emanates from
the heart of a man at the command of hatred,
revenge, love, or superstition. We shall not
enter into the latter two; for though we may
smile at the rash vows and romantic oaths of
love-sick youths and maidens, our blood would
boil with indignation at recalling to mind the
thousands of victims doomed to be immured for
life within the walls of a convent, through having
been compelled to take the oath of celibacy.

Hatred and revenge give rise to more legitimate
oaths. They are the sparks which flash
from the contact of the flint and steel of strong
passions. There is something grand about them.
When Argantes hears that Clorinda has been
slain by Tancred, he takes a terrible oath:

Hierusalem! hear what Argantes saith.
Hear, Heaven! and if he break his oath and word,
Upon this head cast thunder in thy wrath.
I will destroy this Christian lord,
Who this fair dame by night thus murdered hath;
Nor from my side will I ungird this sword
Till Tancred's heart it cleave, and shed his blood,
And leave his corse to wolves and crows for food!

How he kept his oath, and paid the penalty
with his life, forms one of the most brilliant
episodes in Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered.

Another oath of double-dyed villany is that
taken by lago to Othello. The Moor swears:

Now by yond' marble heaven,
In the due reverence of a sacred vow
I here engage my words.

lago's oath is more precise:

Witness yon ever-burning lights above!
You elements that clip us round about!
Witness that here lago doth give up
The execution of his wit, hands, heart,
To wrong'd Othello's service! Let him command,
And to obey shall be in me remorse,
What bloody work soever.

From oaths we might proceed to curses
But thanks to the advance of civilisation, that