Abbildungen der Seite

that such oath, if broken, will bring on him OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, The (IN ENGLISH divine punishment, and therefore such oath is an HISTORY). The natural history and antiquity of idle ceremony. But if there is any oath the vio- oaths in general were discussed some time ago by lation of which he thinks will bring on him Mr. E. B. Tylor. (Macmillan's Magazine, “Ordivine punishment, his opinion as to that kind of deals and Oaths,” May, 1876.) Mr. Tylor has, oath is not at all affected by his opinion as to the among other interesting points, made it all but other kind of oath. Now, oaths taken on judicial occasions are by the mass of mankind considered

sented both God, whose delegate he was, and the nation, all to be oaths the violation of which will bring of whose rights he absorbed into his own person. The politsome punishment some time, and therefore they ical oath was then as logical as it was under the feudal syshave an influence on the great majority of those tem. - The external ceremonies and formulas of the oath

were in keeping with the principle of submission, or rather of who take them. Whether society will in time so

subjection, wbich bent the subject at the feet of his master. far improve as to render it safe to dispense with The master had all the rights; the subject had only duties. this ceremony in judicial proceedings, can not be By the oath the subject solemnly pledged himself to main

tain a condition of things which he had not brought about, affirmed or denied; but a legislator who knows

and which he conld not do away with. He fulfilled his what man now is, will require better reasons for chief duty by promising fidelity to the person whom he recogthe abolition of judicial oaths than Bentham has nized as his superior and master. Nothing simpler or given. — How far the requisition of an oath may

more rational. – The modern law regulating the forms of

government of a people, in the greater number of civilized be injurious in excluding testimony in certain

states, rests on a totally different principle. Divine right cases, and how far oaths on solemn and impor has joined feudalism in the ruins of history, and has been tant occasions may be made most efficacious, and replaced by the right of the people. Dynasties no longer in what cases it may be advisable to substitute

force themselves on a people; they have to be accepted; the

prince is the delegate, the mandatary of national sovereignty; declarations in lieu of oaths, are not matters of

in such a manner, that by the overthrow of the old order of consideration here. It is enough here to show things, logically speaking, the prince owes the oath of fealty that an oath is a sanction or security to some ex

to the people, and not the people to the prince. It is so in tent, if the person who takes it fears divine pun.

certnin republics, in which the principle of popular sov

ereignty has been established from the beginning, and is not ishment in case he should violate it; and that this, perverted by traditional formalities which had their origin and no other, is the ground on which the oath is in the old right of kings. In several constitutional states imposed. — There is some difficulty in stating the king takes the oath of fealty to the constitution. - Hence

in countries which profess the dogma of popular sovereignty, accurately how far oaths were required from wit

the political oath can not be what it was under the old regime. nesses in Roman procedure under the republic | We might even say that not only has it no raison d'étre, no and the earlier emperors. In addition to what reason why it should exist, but that there are reasons has been stated, the reader may refer to Cicero, why it should not exist. An oath, with the forms of solem

nity which surround it, represents in the eyes of men the Pro 2. Rosc. Comæd., c. 15, etc.; and Noodt,

idea of an indissoluble and perpetual engagement. But Op. Omn., ii., 479, De Testibus.By a constitu should the citizen swear to be always faithful to a sovereign tion of Constantine, all witnesses were required whose rights, created by the national will, may be destroyed to give their testimony on oath; and this was

by that same will? Should he swcar always to obey and

support a constitution which the nation may modify or ab. again declared by a constitution of Justinian.

rogate at any moment? We can understand an oath made (Cod. 4, tit. 20, s. 9, 16, 19.) – Many persons con to a superior and immutable being, to God, or to a sovereign scientiously object to the taking of an oath on

consecrated by divine right; we can understand an oath to religious grounds, and particularly with refer

the great principles of truth, probity, honor, duty, princi

ples universally accepted and respected, implanted by God ence to the prohibition in Matthew v., 33. On in the human conscience, whence they dominate time, the subject of oaths in general the reader may circumstances and laws. But it is very difficult to de. consult Grotius, De Jure, B. & P., lib. ii., c. 13;

fine the character and value of an oath given to a remov.

able sovereign, to precarious institutions, made by the very Paley's Moral Philosophy; Tyler's Origin and

persons in whom resides the right to change the sovereign History of Oaths; the Law Magazine, vol. xii.; and modify the institutions. In such an act we can see only and the work of Bentham already referred to.* a conditional oath, limited by restrictions and hedged in by


reservations; but such an act is not an oath. * * * Not only is the political oath useless, since it never strengthened or

saved a constitution or a sovereign, bot, moreover, it is • In the United States a witness may be sworn in any sometimes only an instrument of tyranny or violence. * manner considered binding on his conscience. Quakers The political oath has not, in the eyes of the people of our and others having conscientious scruples against the taking day, the authority which belongs to so solemn an act. It of an oath under any circumstance, may affirm instead. In has not the character of inviolability; it is commented on some of the states the witness, whoever he be, may elect and discussed. It is not of rare occurrence, that the person between the taking of an oath and judicial affirmation. who takes it harbors, in his innermost soul, a faitn different The penalty for the affirmation of what is false by a witness from that to which he has just sworn; public opinion no in a civil or criminal case, is the same as for perjury. - longer grows indignant at this, nor is it even surprised at it: Besides the judicial and professional oath, there is what the sometimes it is an accomplice to the wrong, requiring the French call the “political oatb," which in part corresponds official or other person who takes the oath to remember, at to the oath taken, in countries like the United States, to sup the moment he takes it, an oath he had previously taken. port the constitution. Of this latter oath, C. Lavollée says: This is a deplorable confusion of ideas; for just as there is *** In feudal times, when political society was made up of but one conscience and one morality, there can be but one suzerains, vassals and serfs, the oath of fealty was but the oath: it matters not what we call it, judicial, professional necessary or at least logical consecration of the bonds of or political: all oaths impose the same duties and sbould be submission wbich united the inferior to his superior. Sub kept with the same fidelity * * *. But we must not lose sequently, when absolute monarchy, basing itself on divine sight of the fact that, according to modern law, the constiturigh, bad survived feudalism, the oath of feaity was retained; tion of a country may be indefinitely modified by the nation. and it could not but be retained, since the sovereign repre al will, so that an oath can be no obstacle in the way of the

certain that our formula, “So help me God !” is kind) of the course of succession being legally of Scandinavian or pre-Christian origin; a dis varied. * Such is the bare residue of the formidacovery which throws an unexpected light on the ble and elaborate fabric of oaths and declarations much abused dictum that Christianity is parcel raised up by parliaments of former generations of the common law of England, and the proposi against the pope and the pretender. We say tion, confidently advanced at a later time, that the against the pope and the pretender; for our modoath of allegiance taken by members of parliament ern oaths of allegiance are of statutory devising, is in some way (notwithstanding the removal of and date from Henry VIII.'s assertion of the Jewish disabilities) a bulwark of the Christian crown's ecclesiastical supremacy as against the see religion in England. This statement, however, of Rome. The earliest point of history we have to errs only in generality and in being out of date. observe is of a distinguishing kind, namely, that It is perfectly true that the oath of allegiance was, the modern oath of allegiance is a thing apart from down to the Catholic emancipation, one of the the older oath of fealty, though formed on its chief statutory defenses of the Protestant religion, analogy. Side by side with the fealty due from a though in a political rather than a theological sense; man to his lord in respect to tenure, there was and for many years later it contained a promise recognized in England, it would seem as early as to maintain and support the Protestant succession the tenth century, an obligation of fealty to the to the crown as limited by the act of settlement. crown as due from every free man without regard The history of the oaths of allegiance and su to tenure. - Sometimes we find mixed or transipremacy and of the various transformations they tional forms. Thus, there is preserved among the have undergone, is a varied and complex one. so-called statutes temporis incerti an oath taken by Before we go back to the beginning, it may be as bishops, which, translated, is as follows: “I will well to look at the end. As late as 1868 the Eng be faithful and true, and faith and loyalty will bear lish oath of allegiance was reduced by the promis to the king and to his heirs kings of England, of sory oaths act to its present simple, not to say mea life and of member and of earthly honour, against gre, form, which stands thus: “I,

do swear all people who may live and die; and truly will acthat I will be faithful and bear true allegiance knowledge, and freely will do, the services which to her majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and belong to the temporalty the bishoprick of N., successors, according to law. So help me God.” which I claim to hold of you, and which you renWhat the substance of the oath as thus reduced der to me.

So help me God and the Saints.” I may amount to would not be a very profitable - This bears considerable generic resemblance to question to discuss at large. It certainly does not the modern oath. But it is not simply an oath of promise anything beyond what is at common law allegiance in the modern sense: it includes an the duty of every subject, and it seems to follow oath of fealty in respect of a specific tenure, that it could not be broken except by some act namely, for the temporalities of the see holden of which was otherwise an offense at common law, the crown. This is made more evident by comparifor example, treason or sedition, or perhaps also son of the common forms of a free man's homage the vaguely defined offense of disparaging the and fealty: “I become your man from this day dignity of the crown. And it seems at least a forth, for life, for member and for worldly honour, tenable view that the words “ according to law” and shall bear you faith for the lands that I claim not only express the limit within which the crown to hold of you; saving the faith that I owe unto is entitled to obedience, but cover the possibility (a possibility, fortunately, of the most remote • There is, I conceive, nothing in law to prevent the crown,

by and with the consent of the estates of the realm, in the

ordinary form of an act of parliament, and with the advice desires or of the proposals of reform which it is the right of

of responsible ministers, from repealing or amending the act every citizen to express in a legal way. The oath itself

of settlement. In the event of its appearing likely that there would be opposed to the constitution if it held the person

should be a failure of the persons thereby defined as capable taking it within hounds which would prevent him from ex

of succession, amendment would become necessary; for ercising that right. With the oath as governments have

example, if they should not be or should cease to be Proalways wished to interpret it, it would be possible to contis. cate the national will for all time. Revolution has too frequently undertaken the task of answering that pretense. * *

+ It is remarkable that in the assize of Northampton (1176) Says M. Odilon Barrot, 'Oaths are taken or refused, but not

the justices are directed to take the oath of fealty even from discussed. The sanction of the oath being entirely in the

rustics" : Item justitia capiant domini regis fidelitates conscience, the strength of the oath is entirely in the moral

ab omnibus, scilicet comitibus, baronibus, militibus et ity of the person who takes it.' In political matters, more

libere tenentibus, et etiam rusticis, qui in regno manere than in any other, it is the character of the man which gives

voluerint." Does this include men who were not free! In authority to the oath. * * Let the politician, functionary or

the earliest forins of the oath of fealty to the king, both in civil magistrate take an oath to the law, the soldier to his

England and elsewhere, the promise was to be fidelis sicut flag, and every citizen to what to him is duty: such, in our

homo debet esse domino suo." Allen (** Royal Prerogative," opinion, is the simple and easy solution of this much de

pp. 68-71) thinks this was a limitation of the subject's obebated question. In politics everything is variable, uncertain

dience, or reservation of his right to throw off allegiance if and precarions. In the midst of the crumbling of thrones

the king failed in his duties, and this is probable. But the and constitutions which our generation has witnessed,

words would likewise operate in the king's interest by addwe should like to have pointed out to us a form of govern

ing the stricter personal bond of homage to the more general ment or a dynasty certain to grow old with its oaths. But

obligation of fealty. duty is, and will always subsist. Let men take an oath of Bishops after consecration swore fealty only; but on fealty to it." The political oath" here spoken of is very their election, and before consecration, they did homage. intimately related on one side to the oath of allegiance.-- ED. Glanvill, lib. 9, cap. 1, ad fin.



our lord the king I shall be to you faith the crowne of this Realme mencioned and conful and true, and shall bear you faith of the tene- teyned, and not to any other within this Realme ments I claim to hold of you, and loyally will nor foreyn auctorite or Potentate; And in case any acknowledge and will do the services I owe you othe be made or hathe be made by you to any at the times assigned. So help me God and the persone or persones, that then ye do repute the Saints.” — Moreover, the ceremonies of homage same as vayne and adnychillate; And that to your and fealty have in no way been abrogated or connynge wytte and utter moste of your power, superseded by any of the statutes imposing politi- without gyle, fraude or other undue meane, you cal oaths. In England an oath of homage is shall observe, kepe, mayntene & defende the saide to this day taken by archbishops and bishops, in acte of successyon, and all the hole effectes & cona somewhat fuller form than the old one above tentes therof, and all other actes and statutes cited. An oath of fealty is stated in our law made yn confirmacion or for execucion of the books of the thirteenth century to be required same or of any thynge therin conteyned; and this from every one attending the sheriff's tourn, and ye shall do ayenst all maner of persones of what Coke speaks of it in Calvin's case, as if it had estate, dignyte, degree or condicion so ever they been still in use in his time.* There appears be; And in no wyse do or attempte, nor to your no reason why this oath of fealty should not power suffre to be done or attemptid, directly or in theory still be due from every subject at com indirectly, any thinge or thinges prively or apmon law, though it would be doubtful who had partlye to the lette, hindrannce, damage or derogaauthority to administer it, and what would be cion therof or of any parte of the same by any the legal consequence, if any, of a refusal to maner of meanes or for any maner of pretence; take it. — Shortness of time and space, how. So helpe you God, all Sayntes and the Holye ever, forbid the further discussion of the doc- Evangelystes.” Within two years the calamitrine or history of allegiance at common law. tous end of the marriage with Anne Boleyn We must pass on to the additional obligations brought about a new “Act for the establishment imposed by a series of statutes, from which the of the succession of the imperial crown of this oath of allegiance in its existing form and applica- realm,” (28 H. VIII., c. 7), which, after repealing tion is lineally derived. - In the spring of 1534, the former acts and making minute provision for when the last hopes of a reconciliation with Rome the descent of the crown, appointed a new oath were exhausted, there was passed “An act for of allegiance, and declared that refusal to take it the establishment of the king's succession,” should be deemed and adjudged high treason. (25 H. VIII., c. 22), the objects of which were to There is no variation worth noticing in the form declare valid the king's marriage with Anne of the words, save that Queen Jane is substituted Boleyn, and to limit the succession of the crown for Queen Anne. In the same session (c. 10) there to his issue by her. It also enacted that all sub- followed an “Act extinguishing the authority of jects of full age should make a corporal oath that the bishop of Rome,” which introduced a special they would “truly, firmly and constantly, with oath of abjuration. The preamble is a notable out fraud or guile, observe, fulfill, maintain, de specimen of the inflated parliamentary style of fend and keep to their cunning wit and uttermost the time. It sets forth how “the pretended power of their powers, the whole effect and contents of and usurped authority of the bishop of Rome, by this present act." The oath was not further some called the pope, did obfuscate and specified in the act itself, but a form was at once wrest God's holy word and testament a long season prepared and used, and was expressly authorized from the spiritual and true meaning thereof to his by statute in the next session. (26 H. VIII., c. 2.) worldly and carnal affections, as pomp, glory, avaThis, as the earliest specimen of its kind, deserves rice, ambition and tyranny, covering and shadowthe honor of being given in full, with the original | ing the same with his human and politic devices, spelling: “Ye shall swere to beare faith, truth and traditions and inventions, set forth to promote obedyence alonely to the Kynges Majestye and to and stablish his only dominion, both upon the his heires of his body of his moost dere and entire souls and also the bodies and goods of all Chrisly belovyd laufull wyfe Quene Anne, begotten or tian people”; how the pope not only robbed the to be begotten. And further to the heires of oure king's majesty of his due rights and pre-eminence, said Soveraign Lorde accordyng to the lymytacion“but spoiled this his realm yearly of innumerable in the Statute made for suretie of his succession in treasure”; and how the king and the estates of

the realm, “being overwearied and fatigated with Strictly there is not any oath of homage distinct from the oath of fealty. The oath was always an oath of fealty,

the experience of the infinite abominations and and the duty of homage, where it was present, carried with mischiefs preceding of his impostures,” were it the duty of swearing fealty to the lord.

forced of necessity to provide new remedies. hand, there might be, and often was, fealty without hom

The oath of abjuration was to be taken by all age. (Allen, p. 62. Cp. Hargrave's and Butler's Notes on Co. Litt., 682.) Homage was the privilege of the freeholder, officers, ecclesiastical and temporal, and contained being "the most honourable service, and most humble ser an undertaking to “utterly renounce, refuse, re(Litt., s. 85.) As to the common-law duty, cp. Selden, authority, power and jurisdiction.” — In 1544, vice of reverence, that a franktenant may do to his lord.” linquish or forsake the bishop of Rome and his ** Table Talk,"%, 0. “Fathers and Sons," "Every one at twelve years of age is to take the oath of allegiance in however, it had been discovered that in these court-leets [sic] whereby he swears obedience to the king." oaths of allegiance and supremacy, though they

On the other

seem to a modern reader pretty stringent and dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or comprehensive, “ there lacketh full and sufficient ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, and words"; and in the act further regulating the that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or succession to the crown (35 H. VIII., c. 1) occa- potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, sion was taken to provide a new consolidated form power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, to replace the two previously appointed oaths. ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm, and This is very full and elaborate ; some of its therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all language survived down to our own times, as foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and will be seen by the following extract: “I, A B, authorities, and do promise that from henceforth having now the veil of darkness of the usurped I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's power, authority and jurisdiction of the see and highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to bishop of Rome clearly taken away from mine my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, eyes, do utterly testify and declare in my con pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted science that neither the see nor the bishop of or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs Rome nor any foreign potentate hath, nor ought and successors, or united or annexed to the imto have, any jurisdiction, power or authority perial crown of this realm. So help me God and within this realm, neither by God's law nor by by [sic] the contents of this Book.” — The oath any other just law or means,

* and that I was not imposed on all subjects, and the only shall never consent nor agree that the foresaid penalty for refusing it was forfeiture of the office see or bishop of Rome, or any of their successors, in respect of which it ought to be taken. So far shall practice, exercise or have any manner of this presents a very favorable contrast to the vioauthority, jurisdiction or power within this realm lent legislation of Henry VIII. Under the act of or any other the king's realms or dominions, nor Elizabeth the sanction is the mildest one compatany foreign potentate, of what estate, degree or ible with the law being effectual; indeed, it is condition soever he be, but that I shall resist not properly a penalty, but a condition. The the same at all times to the uttermost of my law no longer says to all sorts of men, “ You power, and that I shall bear faith, truth and true must take this oath or be punished as a traitor," allegiance to the king's majesty and to his heirs and but only to men receiving office or promotion, successors, and that I shall accept, repute “You must take this oath to qualify yourself for and take the king's majesty, his heirs and suc- holding the place.” But troubles were not long cessors, when they or any of them shall enjoy his in gathering, and they bore their natural fruit in place, to be the only supreme head in earth under a return to disused severities. A new and more God of the church of England and Ireland, and stringent anti-papal act was passed in 1563 (5 of all other his highness' dominions

Eliz., c. 1), and it seems that even sharper measRefusal to take the oath is, as before, to subject the ures had been first proposed. The obligation to recusant to the penalties of high treason. Appar- take the oath of supremacy was extended to all ently this act remained in force till Mary's acces persons taking orders and degrees, schoolmasters, sion, in 1553. One of the first proceedings of her barristers, attorneys, and officers of all courts. reign was to abolish all statutory treasons not A first refusal to take the oath was to entail the within the statute of Edward III., by which the penalties of premunire; a second, those of high offense of high treason was and still is defined. treason. Temporal peers were specially exempt(1 Mar., st. 1, c. 1.) Thus, the penalty for not ed, “forasmuch as the queen's majesty is othertaking the oath of allegiance and supremacy was wise sufficiently assured of the faith and loy. abrogated, and the oath of course became a dead alty of the temporal lords of her highness' court letter, though not dealt with in express terms. of parliament.” So matters stood till, early in Nor was it revived in the same form when the the reign of James I., yet a new outbreak of reformation again got the upper hand with the indignation and panic was produced by the gunaccession of Elizabeth. The first act of parlia- powder plot. The Protestant majority was conment of her reign *—which, in repealing the vinced by “that more than barbarous and horreactionary legislation of Philip and Mary, names rible attempt to have blownen up with gunpowder “ Queen Mary, your highness' sister,” with a the king, queen, prince, lords and commons, significant absence of honorable additions-cre in the house of parliament assembled, tending ated a new and much more concise oath of su to the utter subversion of the whole state, premacy and allegiance, to be made by all eccle that popish recusants and occasionally conformsiastical officers and ministers, and all temporal ing papists should be more sharply looked after. officers of the crown, and also by all persons Hence the Act for the better discovering and taking orders or university degrees. It is short repressing of popish recusants" (3 Jas. I., C. 4), enough to be cited in full: “I, A B, do utterly which established, among other precautions, a testify and declare in my conscience that the wordy oath of allegiance, supremacy and abqueen's highness is the only supreme governor juration, which might be tendered by justices of of this realm and of all other her highness' assize or of the peace to any commoner above the * 1 Eliz., c. 1. In the argument in Miller vs. Salomons, in

age of eighteen; persons refusing it were to incur the Exchequer (7 Ex., at p. 478), it was erroneously stated

the penalties of premunire. This oath contains to be the first statute on the subject.

an explicit denial of the pope's authority to de

* »

- In

pose the king or discharge subjects of their alle to dispense with the existing statutes, nominally giance, a promise to bear allegiance to the crown in favor of Romanists and Dissenters equally, by notwithstanding any papal sentence of excom a declaration of liberty of conscience. The result munication or deprivation, and a disclaimer of all was, that a declaration against transubstantiation equivocation or mental evasion or reservation. was added to the oaths of allegiance and supremAbout the middle of it occurs for the first time acy, by a new penal statute entitled “An act for the “damnable doctrine and position" clause, as preventing dangers which may happen from we may call it, which was long afterward con- popish recusants,” (25 Car. II., c. 2). After the tinued in the interests of the Protestant succession revolution of 1688, however, a new start was against James II. and the pretender. The words taken. By the combined effect of two of the are these: "And I do further swear that I do from earliest acts of the convention parliament (1 Will. my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious & Mar., c. 1 and c. 8), all the previous forms of and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, expressly that princes which be excommunicated or de- including the declaration as to taking arms against prived by the pope may be deposed or mur. the king, were abrogated, and a concise form subdered by their subjects or any other whosoever.” stituted, which stood as follows: “I, A B, do Here also we find the words, afterward discussed sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful in relation to the admission of Jews to parlia- and bear true allegiance to their majesties King ment, "upon the true faith of a Christian.” William and Queen Mary. So help me God, They can not have been particularly intended to etc.* I, A B, do swear that I do from my heart exclude Jews from office, as Jews were at that abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, time excluded from the realm altogether. It has that damnable doctrine and position that princes been plausibly conjectured that their real inten. excommunicated or deposed by the pope or any tion was to clinch the proviso against mental authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or reservation or equivocation by conclusively fix murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoing a sense to that oath which by no evasion or ever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, mental reservation should be got rid of without person, prelate, states or potentate hath or ought (even in the opinion of the Jesuit doctors them to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preselves) incurring the penalty of mortal sin.” For eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, in a certain treatise on Equivocation, of which a within this realm. So help me God, etc.” copy corrected in Garnet's handwriting was found 1701 came the death of James II. at St. Gerin the chamber of Francis Tresham, one of the mains, and the ostentatious recognition of the conspirators named in the act, and was much pretender as king of England by Louis XIV. used on the trial, this point of mental reservation Fuller and more stringent precautions were again is fully discussed; and it is laid down that equiv. thought needful, and in the very last days of ocation and reservation may be used without William III.'s life an act was passed (13 & 14 danger to the soul even if they are expressly dis- Wm. III., C. 6), imposing on specified classes of claimed in the form of the oath itself. But there persons, including peers, members of the house is this exception, that “no person is allowed to of commons, and all holding office under the equivocate or mentally reserve, without danger, crown, an oath of special and particular abjuraif he does so, of incurring mortal sin, where his tion of the pretender's title. The declaration of doing so brings apparently his true faith toward 1672 against transubstantiation (which had been God into doubt or dispute.” It was probably spared from the general abrogation of other existconceived by the advisers of the crown that the ing tests at the beginning of the reign) was at words, “upon the true faith of a Christian,” the same time expressly continued. As the form brought the statutory form of oath within this settled by this act remained substantially unexception. (Judgment of Baron Alderson in changed down to our own time, it is here set out: Miller 18. Salomons, 7 Ex. 536, 537.) A few “I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, years later, in the session of 1610, a sort of con profess, testify and declare in my conscience befirming act was passed (7 James I., c. 6), which fore God and the world, that our sovereign lord made minute provision as to the places where, and King William is lawful and rightful king of this the officers by whom, the oath should be admin. | realm and of all other his majesty's dominions istered to various classes of persons. Shortly and countries thereunto belonging. And I do after the restoration an oath declaring it unlawful solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe upon any pretense whatever to take arms against in my conscience that the person pretended to be the king, was imposed on all soldiers and persons the prince of Wales during the life of the late holding military offices (14 Car. II., c. 3, ss. 17, 18); King James and since his decease pretending to and the act of uniformity (14 Car. II., c. 4, s. 6) be and taking upon himself the stile and title of contained a declaration to the like effect, and also king of England by the name of James the Third, against the solemn league and covenant. A simi- hath not any riglit or title whatsoever to the crown lar provision in the corporation act was overlooked of this realm or any other the dominions thereto at the revolution, and escaped repeal till the reign of George I. In 1672 a revival of the anti-Cath

* The " etc." means, I suppose, “and the contents of this olic agitation followed upon Charles II.'s attempts | Book.”

« ZurückWeiter »