Modernising the Law on Oaths & Affirmations

In modern times we are witnessing social change at an increasing rate as well as globalisation. Against this background it is important that English law keeps up-to-date. However, many legal formalities of the past have become obsolete today. This article considers one set of legal formalities. The requirement imposed on a person, in various situations, to give an oath or affirmation. The two words are connected since an oath comprises a religious affirmation. Thus, an oath is a type of affirmation or assertion these words being synonyms. And, an affirmation is the same as a declaration. Hence, sometimes, the words affirmation and declaration are used interchangeably. Oaths, affirmations and declarations may be oral or written.


INTRODUCTION
In modern times we are witnessing social change at an increasing rate as well as globalisation. Against this background it is important that English law keeps up-to-date. However, many legal formalities of the past have become obsolete today. 1 This article considers one set of legal formalities. The requirement imposed on a person, in various situations, to give an oath or affirmation. The two words are connected since an oath comprises a religious affirmation. Thus, an oath is a type of affirmation or assertion -these words being synonyms. 2 And, an affirmation is the same as a declaration. 3 Hence, sometimes, the words affirmation and declaration are used interchangeably. Oaths, affirmations and declarations may be oral or written.
In religious societies such as in Biblical times -as well as in later Anglo-Saxon and medieval England -the oath was an integral feature. Especially, in legal and ecclesiastical spheres. The oath was designed to be morally binding. However, it was not (generally) legally binding (enforceable) apart from in legal proceedings, where the crime of perjury could be held to have been committed if a false oath was given. 4 By means of an oath a person swore to (that is, asserted or declared) the truth of something (an assertory or declaratory oath) or promised to do something (a promissory oath). The moral sanction for breach of an oath was the widespread religious belief in English society that an oath breaker would be severely punished by (the Christian) God. Against this background, English law obliged certain people to give an oath in various situations. This was (often) prior to taking up a Crown office. Or in transactions concerning land, where oaths of homage or fealty were usually required. If a person refused or neglected to give an oath when legally required, sometimes, a sanction was imposed by English statute law. However, this was not invariable.
By the 17 th century, opposition to giving an oath was espoused by many Quakers and other religious dissenters on the basis that Christ had opposed the giving of oaths. And, by Victorian times, the law on when oaths were legally required was in disarray. Also, the form of the required oath was, often, uncertain or the wording made little sense, being archaic. Further, many people refused to give oaths on the basis that they were agnostic, atheist or not of the Christian religion. Or, that they did not believe in monarchical government -many oaths being given to the Crown in person. Besides, many argued, if an oath was not legally binding, what was the point ? The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 (the '1868 Act') was a compromise between those who argued for the abolition of all oaths and those who -mainly for religious reasons -argued that they still engendered a sense of moral responsibility in the oath giver. As it was, the 1868 Act simplified the occasions on which an oath was legally required as well as the form of some of them. It also provided for the giving of a (non-religious) affirmation in place of an oath. In hindsight, however, those dissenters who argued for the abolition of most (or  Oath of an Accuser. 'By the Lord before whom this holy thing is holy, I thus bring my charge with full folkright, 30 without deceit and without malice, and without any guile whatsoever, that stolen from me was this property [ ], which I claim [and] which I seized in the possession of [ ].'  Oath of the Accused. 'By the Lord…neither by counsel nor by deed had I knowledge of or part in this, that the property [ ] was carried off. On the contrary, I possess the property for this reason, that I lawfully inherited it…that [ ] having the lawful right to sell it, sold it to me…etc.'  Oath of one seizing Property. ' Thus, the oath was the primary mode of proof, for legal purposes, in Anglo-Saxon times 32 -with more than one oath being required in various circumstances. 33 Further, the religious nature of the oath was emphasised ('By the Lord') -meaning, may the Lord be my witness -which invocation, likely, was from the Bible. 34 Anglo-Saxon oaths were also short, definitive in nature and in standard form -all as befits a society with a population almost wholly illiterate. As for the breach of an oath, the sanctions were (it seems) ecclesiastical ones, save where the Anglo-Saxon dooms (law) expressly provided otherwise. Thus, the law of king Ine of Wessex (689-726 AD) provided for the payment of compensation resulting from a false oath given when vouching to warranty in the case of livestock. 35 And, the laws of king Aethelstan (925-39 AD) provided that: if anyone swears a false oath [i.e. an untrue oath] and it becomes manifest he has done so, he shall never again have the right to swear an oath; and he shall not be buried in any consecrated burial ground when he dies, unless he has the testimony of the bishop, in whose diocese he is, that he has made such amends as his confessor has prescribed to him. 36 32 Pollock & Maitland, n 4, vol 1, pp 39-40 'Oath was the primary mode of proof, an oath going not to the truth of specific fact, but to the justice of the claim or defence as a whole. The number of persons required to swear varied according to the nature of the case and the rank of the persons concerned. Inasmuch as the oath, if duly made, was conclusive, what we now call the burden of proof was rather a benefit than otherwise under ancient Germanic procedure…An accused person who failed in his oath, by not having the proper number of oath helpers prepared to swear, or who was already disqualified from clearing himself by oath, had to go to one of the forms of ordeal.' 33 Ibid, p 40 'A 'fore-oath' distinct from the definitive oath of proof, was required of the party commencing a suit, unless the fact complained of was manifest…A defendant of…evil repute [i.e. of ill fame] might be driven by the fore-oath alone to the alternative of a three-fold oath or the ordeal.' 34 Bible, n 23, Deuteronomy, ch 6, v 13 'Fear the lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.' Zephaniah, ch 1, v 5 'those who bow down and swear by the lord…'. (italics supplied). See also Tyler, n 9, p 108. Ancient Egyptians appear to have sworn oaths in the name of Pharaoh (who was treated as a god), hence 'by Pharaoh my lord.', see Mercer, n 9, p 37. 35  if anyone swears a false oath [i.e. an oath that is untrue] on the relics and is convicted, he shall lose his hand or half his wergild which shall be divided between the lord and the bishop. And henceforth he shall not be entitled to swear an oath, unless he makes amends to the best of his ability before God, and finds surety that ever afterwards he will desist from such [perjury]. 38

(italics supplied)
It is also possible to summarise how the use of both the oath -and the seal -developed in Anglo-Saxon law from Scandinavian (Viking) and Germanic customs, viz.  Oath. The oath is age old, prior to the Old Testament. However, the latter stressed the religious nature of the oath (the invocation of God). With the departure of the Roman administration from England in 410 AD, there were progressive incursions by Germanic tribes (the Saxons) into England and, from 866 AD, the Vikings (Scandinavians). Both recognised the concept of an oath (the invocation of a deity) which -with the Christianizing of the Anglo-Saxons -became a Christian deity. Generally, in giving an oath, the right hand would have been raised in prayer (e.g. Genesis 14:22: 'But Abram said to the king of Sodom 'I have raised my [right] hand to the lord, God most high, creator of heaven and earth');  Seal. In the Bible, the transfer of a token (sign) was used to evidence, legally, the conclusion of an agreement (also called a contract or the striking of a bargain). For example, a shoe (as Abraham used when buying land as a burial land) or silver (in powder form, prior to coinage) or a handshake (likely, only between equals) or the giving of an oath (given by an inferior to a superior). In Roman times, instead, a gold ring was (often) transferred by one party to another to signify the conclusion of an agreement (the ring was returned on full payment, unless part of the purchase price). Or a scales was struck with a piece of copper (prior to coinage, and similar to the auctioneer's hammer). In the early Roman Catholic church, the gold ring was replaced with a wax seal on a document. However, since the Germans and Vikings were illiterate, to indicate that they had reached agreement on a matter, they gave a 'hand seal' instead -the 'seal' (token) being the shaking of another's hand (or clasp up to the elbow). An oath would have accompanied this. And, it would (likely) have been given without any handshake or handclasp in the case of a superior dealing with an inferior, such as in the case of an oath of fealty.

OATHS IN EARLY MEDIEVAL TIMES (a) Continued Importance of Oaths
Oaths remained an important part of English society after the Norman Conquest of 1066. 39 For example:  Oath of Fealty. An assembly (in Anglo-Saxon, gemot) was held on Salisbury Plain on 1 August 1086 attended by the witan 40 and all the landowners of substance in England. Those assembled swore an oath of fealty to William the Conqueror (William I, 1066-87). 41 Such an oath was not dis-similar to the oath given to king Edmund (921-46 AD) in c. 943, some 150 years earlier. 42 Henry I (1100-35) also secured a similar oath on Salisbury Plain in 1116; 43 38 Ibid, p 195 (it may be noted that relics were, by this time, often contained within the altar). Cnut was Scandinavian (king of Denmark and, later, Norway). Thus, he may have moved to their harsher practice for breach of an oath. The loss of a hand (the right hand, the sword hand and hand for swearing an oath) would have been grievous. See also Pollock & Maitland, n 4, vol 2, p 541. 39 There were also new oaths. For example, a Frenchman appealed of a crime by an Englishman -if unwilling to submit to proof by means of a judgment or the duel -had to purge himself by giving an unbroken oath. See DM Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter 1066-1215 (1964), p 6. 40 Thorpe, n 30, (Glossary, witenagemut), described it thus in Anglo-Saxon times, '[an assembly of] ealdormen, duces [leaders], earls, thanes, abbots, priests, and even deacons. In this assembly, laws, both secular and ecclesiastical, were promulgated and repealed, and charters of grants made by the king confirmed and ratified. Whether this assembly met by royal summons, or by usage at stated periods, is a point of doubt.' 41 Plucknett, n 27, p 34. See also Robertson, n 27, p 239 '(Ten Articles of William I) 'we have decreed that all freemen shall affirm by covenant [promise] and oath, that, both in and out of England, they will be loyal to king William I [1066-87], and along with him uphold his lands and honour with the utmost loyalty, and defend them before him against his enemies.' 42 Robertson, n 27, p 13 (Law of king Edmund) 'all shall swear in the name of the Lord, before whom the holy thing is holy [possibly, referring to an altar or a relic], that they will be faithful to king Edmund, even as it behoves a man to be faithful to his lord, without any dispute or dissension…'. 43 Plucknett, n 27, p 127. In 1215, prior to Magna Carta, king John (1199-1216) ordered the sheriffs to administer the oath of allegiance and fealty to the freemen of every shire. Ibid,p 70. ilr.ccsenet.org International Law Research Vol. 9, No. 1; 2020  Oath of a Juror. In a case in 1127 to decide who had the right to a port and certain tolls, 12 jurors from Sandwich and 12 from Dover gave a juror's oath, 44 swearing on the Bible (the gospels) as they would have done in Anglo-Saxon times.
Indeed, the form of the Anglo-Saxon oath -its simplicity, succinctness and religious nature -tended to change little over the centuries. For example, the oath of an Anglo-Saxon oath helper (also, called a compurgator -that is, who was one who swore to his belief in the truth of another's oath) was much the same in the 15 th century as it was in Anglo-Saxon times. 45 The manner of swearing -on the Bible or on an altar (which tended to contain a relic) 46 -also, remained unchanged. 47

(b) Early Legal Texts on Oaths
The earliest law book, Glanvill, Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England (c. 1189), referred to the giving of oaths, post-Conquest, in various instances. 48 So too, the other major legal text of that period, Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England (c. 1250). 49 Inter alia, it referred to the following:  Oaths required in Civil Actions. Bracton referred to the form of oath sworn by a juror in various civil actions such as in the civil assizes (legal proceedings) of novel disseisin, darrein presentment, mortdancestor or assize utrum. Also, when warranting an essoin (i.e. when a party swore that he was detained from attending court by reason of illness); 50  Oaths of Homage & Fealty. Bracton referred to the basic oaths of homage 51 and of fealty, 52 which oaths remained important throughout the medieval period; 53  Public Offices -Oaths. Bracton referred to the oath sworn by a judge when taking office; 54  Legal Proceedings. Bracton referred to the promissory oath of the 12 jurors in a plea of the crown (that is, in the case of a criminal offence) when the judges were on eyre (circuit). 55 Also, to the oath of the 12 44 Stenton, n 39, pp 20, 120-1 'The first of them [i.e. the first of the jurors], Wulfwine son of Beornwine, standing in the midst of the multitude and holding in his hands the sacred book of the gospels [the Bible], spoke thus: 'I swear, the toll of the port of Sandwich, all the maritime customs on either side of the river from [ ] to [ ], and the ferryboat, belong to [ ], nor has anyone else any right there save them and their servants, as I have learned from my ancestors and seen and heard from my youth up to now, so help me God [sic me deus adiuuet] and these holy gospels.' 45 Henry, n 29, p 53 'The oaths of the defendants and of their compurgators were thus substantially the same from the tenth to the fifteenth century, inclusive'. See also Ibid, p 76. 46 The need for all altars to contain relics was a requirement from the reign of Charlemagne (768-814 AD), Rio, n 26, p 24. 47 Henry, n 29, p 53 'The usual manner of swearing was for the person to do so with his hand on the book, usually the gospels [Bible], and to kiss the book. The following exhortation by the judge to him who is about to give an oath is quoted from the Cinque Ports custumal: 'The judge shall exhort him or them that shall swear [,]  will swear…that in the counties into which they are to travel they will do right justice to the best of their ability to rich and poor alike, and that they will observe the assize according to the articles set out…and that they will execute all that is right and just in matters pertaining to the crown of the lord king.' See also Pollock & Maitland, n 4, vol 1, p 154. 55 Ibid, p 329, the first of the jurors shall say: 'Hear this, ye justices, that I will speak the truth as to that on which you shall question me on the lord king's behalf, and I will faithfully do that which you shall command me on the lord king's behalf, and for nothing will I fail so to do to the utmost of my power, so help me God and these holy relics.' And after him each of the others, separately and individually, shall swear an oath in this form: 'The oath that A (that is the first juror) has here sworn I will for my part jurors in the case of a plea of the crown in a township. 56 The oath of a juror was different from that of a witness, whose legal appearance only developed later. 57 There were also oaths given by an appellor (i.e. one making an accusation against another of a crime) and an appellee. 58 Bracton refers to the invocation 'So help me God' which was little different to the Anglo-Saxon one of 'By the Lord'. 59 Both of these phrases comprise an invocation of God as a witness and both may have originated from the injunction in the Bible (the Book of Deuteronomy): Fear the lord your God… and take your oaths in his name. 60

(c) Britton -Legal Description of an Oath
A classic statement on the nature of the oath was given in a legal text by Britton in 1290: An oath is an affirmation or denial of anything, whereby a person is charged upon peril of his soul to speak the truth; and it was provided on account of people difficult of belief that oaths should be taken upon the holy gospels of God for avoidance of idolatry. Oaths were instituted that men might thereby do good service; for by means of an oath many crimes are convicted and punished, and many a man does by an oath great good and great service to his neighbour. It was likewise provided that one should swear by God and not by his creatures, or his members, to avoid the sin of blasphemy, and that none should swear but with an intention of doing service by the oath, upon necessary and just occasions. An oath therefore is allowable when the conscience within agrees in every point with the lips, without alteration or abatement; and if there be any disagreement, it is perjury…perjury is a lie [a false statement] affirmed by oath. 61 Britton noted that some oaths were promissory. These were of three kinds. However, breach of the same were not subject to legal sanction -save for oaths given in the legal context, where the crime of perjury was committed. 62 However, prosecutions for perjury may have been limited to jurors giving false verdicts at assizes, as opposed to other inquests. 63 Further, the law on perjury may not have been strictly enforced 64 -despite the strong words of Glanvill (see (b) above) in c. 1189. 65 56 Ibid, p 405 'When the twelve jurors and the [jurors of] the four townships are present, those of the vills will take an oath first, each by himself or all together; lifting up their hands let them swear in these words… 'Hear this, ye justices, that we will speak the truth about what is asked of us on the king's behalf, nor will we for any reason fail to tell the truth, so help us God etc.' 57 The witness was not the same as the oath helper (compurgator). His oath was an assertory one according to a set formula (an oath that he had been present when a certain event/act had occurred, i.e. an eye witness 'An oath is an affirmation or denial of something, strengthened by swearing upon a sacred object…Of oaths some are affirmatory as regards the past or the present, some are promissory as regards the future. Perjury is a lie confirmed with an oath…'. 62 Ibid, n 61, pp 502-3 'The first is where any one promises by an oath that he will do or assist in something which ought not to be done, as feloniously kill a man; and such an oath ought not to be kept. The second is where a person swears that he will do something which he may lawfully do, and this solemnly, but without necessity or reason, and in so doing he is guilty of sin. The third kind of swearing is that which proceeds from a levity in talking and from a bad habit; this kind of swearing is sinful, but less so than the former. But of these three kinds of oath we shall not speak in this chapter; for they are not subject to earthly attaint [i.e. to criminal process], nor is any oath except that of assertion which relates only to time past or present [Britton was referring to assertory (declaratory) oaths given in legal proceedings].' As to whether, apart from attaint, a person could be punished under the common law for perjury prior to the Perjury Act 1562, see W Hudson, A Treatise of the Court of Star Chamber (ed. F Hargrave with intro by TG Barnes, Legal Classics, 1986), pp 72-82. 63 Ibid, pp 278-9 (oath for an assize jury), 'When the parties have agreed upon the jury, then let the first juror, touching the holy gospels, swear after this manner 'Hear this, ye justices, that I will speak the truth of this assize…etc.' 64 Pollock & Maitland, n 4, vol 2, pp 541-2 'The main weight of the probative procedure of the king's courts was being thrown upon the oaths, not of the parties, nor of witnesses adduced by them, but of jurors. In most cases, however, even those jurors stood in no terror of a law against perjury, for the rule was established that if both the parties to the litigation had voluntarily 'put themselves' upon a jury [i.e.

OATHS IN LATER MEDIEVAL TIMES, FROM 1290
In later medieval times (that is, post-1290) it is likely that the giving of an oath -and its importance -declined. Such was (likely) linked to an increase in literacy and to the development of writing as well as to a growth in population and a decline in religiosity.

(a) Development of the Deed
Putting legal matters in writing (in a carta, charter) developed, in the main, after the Norman Conquest 1066 with the Normans, also, bringing with them the use of the seal, adopting the Roman chancery practice of the Catholic church. 66 Writing -being more permanent and reliable evidence than an oral declaration -the English courts placed more credence on it and they recognised, from the late 13th century, the legal concept of a 'deed' (that is, a written document sealed by the maker to evidence his consent to the same). Likely, at first, deeds were accompanied by oaths. However, the latter soon dropped away and oaths were not a pre-requisite for a deed which legal concept -in time -adopted as legal pre-requisites: writing, sealing and delivery -pre-requisites which were to prevail until modern times. 67

(b) Changing Marketplace
Verbal oaths would still have been used in the marketplace for asserting title to goods, warranting their condition etc. However, from the reign of Henry II (1100-35), there developed, in England, much foreign trade (and international markets) as well as an expansion in domestic trade. 68  Thus, giving an oath in a foreign language or in a dialect or with a foreigner (who may not have been religious or, even, a Christian) would have resulted in declining reliance on the efficacy of such an oath, as the time honoured Anglo-Saxon expressions may have given way to less certain ones;  Further, in cosmopolitan London and other large English towns, transactions would have been conducted between persons who knew nothing of the moral integrity, or the religiosity, of each otherunlike in small towns and villages where everyone knew each other's business and 'fame' (reputation);  Besides, other evidence of being contractually bound developed -such as tallies and the use of tokens (including the more widespread use of coinage) 69 -so that oral oaths and affirmations of any sort became supplementary.
Thus (likely) oaths -and the credence to be placed on them -tended to decline in the area of commerce. 70 Further, in the courts, the rise of professional swearers (also called, common swearers or common compurgators) debased greatly the sanctity of the oath, such that it became a scandal. 71 Further, the problem with the oath was chosen a jury trial] neither of them could complain of the verdict. On the other hand, 'assizes' as distinct from 'juries', are the outcome not of consent but of ordinance. An assize therefore may be attainted, that is to say, the verdict of the twelve men can be brought before another set of twenty-four men and the twelve will be punished and their verdict reversed if the twenty-four disagree with them. The punishment for the false twelve looks upon paper a heavy punishment. They are to be imprisoned and lose their chattels; also they 'lose the law of the land', that is to say they cease to be 'oath worthy'. As a matter of fact we may sometimes see attainted jurors escaping with moderate fines. The law seems to have no procedure which directly strives to distinguish among untrue verdicts those which are sworn with a knowledge of their falsehood.' See also Bracton, n 49, vol 3, p 346.
that it was only morally binding in most instances 72 with the crime of perjury, also, being little enforced.  74 Quoted by Tyler, n 9, pp 43-4 who said much the same at the time of his writing (in 1834), pp 52-3 'we are compelled to witness the dreadful extent to which perjury, direct palpable perjury, prevails among us from one end of the kingdom to another; and that not only in the ordinary and inferior offices of magisterial jurisdiction, but in the highest and most solemn tribunals of our country…Indeed one gentleman, very high in the profession, assured me, as a result of his own observation, that not one half of those who came before him to swear affidavits, seemed to feel that they were under the slightest religious obligation to speak the truth.' 75 J Cowell, Law Dictionary (1708)(oath) 'is an affirmation or denial by any Christian of any thing lawful and honest before one or more that have authority to give the same, for the advancement of truth and right, calling almighty God to witness, that his testament is true.' T Blount, A Law Dictionary and Glossary (1717) 'Oath (juramentum) is a calling almighty God to witness, that the testimony is true…Our ancestors did believe, that a man could not be so wicked to call God to witness any thing which was not true; but that if any one should be perjured any other, directly or indirectly to bring in any popish doctrine, contrary to that which is established: nor will I ever give my consent to alter the government of this Church [of England] by archbishops, bishops, deans and archdeacons etc as it stands now established, and as by right it ought to stand; nor yet ever to subject it to the usurpations and superstitions of the see of Rome: and that all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever: and this I do heartily, willingly and truly, upon the faith of a Christian, so help me God in Jesus Christ. 84 During the English civil war (1642-9), Parliament devised its own oaths. 85 These, invariably, provoked strong opposition -even among those on its side fighting against the Crown (i.e. against Charles I, 1625-49).

(d) Position of the CoE on Oaths
Besides this, what Christ meant by prohibiting oaths was widely debated. Were his words to be read as a 'blanket' ban on oath giving or did they exclude, for example, oaths required by the State for legal purposes ? It seems that the New Testament was not clear on this since St Paul did not appear to reject the giving of an oath. 86 Further, Christ gave an oath to the high priest Caiaphas, when required to do so. 87  In an effort to diminish fractious debate, the CoE -in article 39 of its 39 Articles of 1562 -did not oppose the giving of an oath as such. 88 Further, later CoE writers (and others) argued for this either on the basis that: (a) Christ did not prohibit oath giving outright but only certain forms of it; 89 or (b) when oaths were compelled to be given by State, it was religiously acceptable to give the same; 90  However, such an analysis did not satisfy many and religious dis-satisfaction over the giving of an oath continued in some Protestant denominations as well as among philosophical thinkers (indeed, it still does). 91 Further, it became asserted by legal writers and others than a person was not bound if the oath given was repugnant to the law of nature or unlawful. None can be bound by oath to whatever is repugnant to the law of nature; nor to keep any promise made contrary to it. Grotius [Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the Dutch jurist] indeed says, that though nothing is due to the person to whom we swear, yet to God there is, in virtue of the oath; but it is not possible that God should approve base or vicious actions; and so far are we from doing what is acceptable to God, that we depart from our duty in doing it. As to [for] an oath procured by deceit and over-reaching, we are to enquire whether the thing promised is dishonest or no? If dishonest no oath can be binding…A robber extorts a promise from me by oath; am I bound to fulfil this promise? He has no right to my property, much less to extort it from me by oath…A person is guilty of perjury, who takes an oath in a sense different from that in which it is tendered: such simulation and dissimulation is called [a] mental reservation; which is contrary to the law of nature, because a violation of duty. 92 In conclusion, by the 17 th century, the issue of giving oaths was a source of strong contention. Coke sought to provide some legal clarity on oaths in his work.

COKE -NATURE OF THE OATH IN 1641
The legal nature of the oath was summarised by Coke in the third volume of his Institutes of the Laws of England, published in 1641 (this was published posthumously, he died in 1628). Coke stated: This word oath is derived of the Saxon word eoth…An oath is an affirmation or denial by any Christian of any thing lawful and honest, before one or more, that have authority to give [i.e. to administer] the same for advancement of truth and right, calling almighty God to witness, that his testimony is true 93 … So as an oath is so sacred, and so deeply concerns the consciences of Christian men, as the same cannot be ministered to any, unless the same be allowed by the common law, or by some act of Parliament; 94 neither can any oath allowed by the common law or by Act of Parliament be altered, but It is unclear whether anyone prior to Coke had stated so plainly that to administer an oath when the same was not required by the common law or by legislation was a 'high contempt.' 97 Elsewhere in his work -when 92 MacBean, n 75 (oath). He also stated: 'Neither atheists nor epicureans, who deny, the former the being, the latter the providence of God, can have an oath administered, and be bound by… an oath, which declares the omniscience and vindictive justice of God.' (italics supplied) 93 Coke also said, n 76, vol 4, p 278 'An oath ought to be accompanied with the fear of God, and service of God for advancement of truth….' 94 Coke, n 76, vol 3, p 164. Coke continued 'The oath of the king's privy council, the justices, the sheriff etc was thought fit to be altered and enlarged, but that was done by authority of Parliament. For further proof whereof, and of the matters aforesaid, see the statutes here quoted, and it shall evidently appear that no old oath can be altered, or new oath raised without an Act of Parliament, or any oath ministered by any that have not allowance by the common law, or by an Act of Parliament. And to conclude this point, it was resolved in Parliament holden in anno 43 Eliz [43 Eliz, c 12, 1601] that the commissioners concerning policies of assurances [insurances] could not examine upon oath, because they had no warrant either by the common law, or by any Act of Parliament: and therefore it was enacted at that Parliament, that it should be lawful for the said commissioners to examine upon oath any witness etc. At this Parliament I attended, being then attorney general.' 95 See also Tyler, n 9, pp 309-15. 96 Coke, n 76, vol 3, pp 164-5. Tyler, n 9, p 69 (in 1834) thought that such a punishment 'seems to have fallen into desuetude'. As to the prevalence of oaths, J Selden,  [JP] or other person to administer, or cause or allow to be administered, or to receive or cause or allow to be received, any oath, affidavit or solemn affirmation touching any matter or thing whereof such [JP] or other person hath no jurisdiction or cognizance by some statute in force at the time being: provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to any oath, affidavit or solemn affirmation before any [JP] in any matter or thing touching the preservation of the peace, or the prosecution, trial or punishment of offences, or touching any proceedings before either of the Houses of Parliament, or any committee thereof respectively, nor to any oath, affidavit, or affirmation which may be required by the laws of any foreign country to give validity to instruments in writing designed to be used in such foreign countries respectively.' Ibid, pp 233-4. A JP contravening this section would be guilty of a misdemeanour, it seems. However, such a category no longer applies and it is dubious whether this s 13 is of use today. See also HW Woolrych, The Criminal Law (1862), p 933.
analysing the Statute of Westminster the Second (1285), c 47 and discussing the oath of office to be taken by conservators of the Humber and other rivers -Coke stated: A new oath cannot be imposed upon any judge, commissioner, or any other subject without authority of Parliament…but the giving of every oath must be warranted by Act of Parliament, or by the common law time out of mind. 98 Coke also noted that the breach of an oath (that is, giving a false (untrue) oath) did not comprise the crime of perjury at common law -save in the case of an oath given in judicial proceedings: For though an oath be given by him that has lawful authority, and the same is broken, yet if it be not in a judicial proceeding, it is not perjury 99 punishable either by the common law, or by this Act, because they are general and extra-judicial, but serve for aggravation of the offence, as general oaths given to officers or ministers of justice, citizens, burgesses, or the like, or for the breach of an oath of fealty or allegiance etc they shall not be charged in any court judicial for the breach of them afterwards. As if [i.e. when] an officer commit extortion, he is in truth perjured, because it is against his general oath: and when he is charged with extortion, the breach of his oath may serve for aggravation. 100 (italics supplied) The 'Act', Coke was referring to was the first legislation on the crime of perjury, the Perjury Act 1562 (repealed in 1911).

BLACKSTONE & BURN -OATHS IN THE 18 th & 19 th CENTURIES (a) Book of Oaths (1715)
A useful text on oaths -indicating who gave them and their form -is Garnet, Book of Oaths (1715). A list of the oaths Garnet refers to is attached to the end of this article. It may be noted that few of the offices and the courts to which the oath applied in 1715 still exist today. Further, by 1715, most promissory oaths (cf. those in legal proceedings which tend to be declaratory) could be categorised into just 2 categories: (a) oaths of allegiance; (b) oaths of fealty -later to be called oaths of fidelity and then official oaths (in the 1868 Act).

(b) Blackstone on Oaths: 1765-9
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-9), said little on the nature of oaths. However, in respect of perjury (in which he followed the definition of Coke) he stated: The law takes no notice of any perjury but such as is committed in some court of justice, having power to administer an oath; or before some magistrate or proper officer, invested with a similar authority, in some proceedings relative to a civil suit or a criminal prosecution: for it esteems all other oaths unnecessary at least, and therefore will not pursue breach of them… 101

(c) Oaths Act 1775, s 1
This section is mentioned since it is still extant. It clarifies that JP's may administer statutorily required oaths and affirmations. Thus, s 1 (in all cases where penalties etc are directed to be levied under Acts, justices are empowered to administer oaths etc for levying such penalties etc), states: In all cases where any penalty is directed to be levied or distress to be made, by any Act of Parliament now in force or hereafter to be made, it shall and may be lawful for any [JP or JP's] acting under the authority of such Acts respectively, and he and they is and are hereby authorised and impowered to 98 Coke, n 76, vol 2, p 478. When referring 'the common law time out of mind' he was likely referring to oaths -such as those of homage, fealty and allegiance (none of the breach of which Coke thought was punishable, per se, at law). Coke also noted that 'The oath of the [privy] counsellors, judges, sheriffs, under-sheriffs, escheators, attorneys, mayors, and bailiffs are established by Act of Parliament'. See also R Burn, The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer (23 rd ed, 1820), vol 3, pp 529-30 referring to Coke on this. 99 Ibid, vol 3, p 164. Coke defined perjury as 'a crime committed, when a lawful oath is ministered by any that has authority, to any person, in any judicial proceeding, who swears absolutely, and falsely in a matter material to the issue, or cause in question, by their own act, or by the subornation of others.' 100 Ibid, p 165. The Act referred to was the Perjury Act 1562 (5 Eliz c 9, rep 1911). 101 W Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-9), vol 3, p 165. He continued 'The perjury must also be wilful, positive, and absolute; not upon surprise, or the like: it also must be in some point material to the question in dispute; for if it only be in some trifling collateral circumstance, to which no regard is paid, it is no more penal than in the voluntary extrajudicial oath, as constitutes perjury in the principal.' Blackstone also noted the repeal of any statutory requirement to take an oath ex officio (vol 1, pp 101, 447 and see n 77). And that, under certain Acts (now repealed), failure to take an oath, when required by them, was punishable as the crime of (or incurring the penalty of) praemunire (vol 4, pp 115-6, see also p 124). However, praemunire facias was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967.
administer an oath or oaths, affirmation or affirmations, to any person or persons, for the purpose levying such penalties or making such distresses respectively. In this Act reference to making a distress include references to using the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 1007 (taking control of goods) to recover a sum. 102

(d) Oath as a Religious Declaration: Caselaw in 1786
A case in 1786 (R v White) emphasised the religious nature of an oath. In a trial for horse stealing a witness said that he had heard that there was a God and he believed those who told lies would come to the gallows. However, the witness acknowledged that he had never learned the catechism. Also, that he was altogether ignorant of: the obligations of an oath, a future state of reward and punishment, the existence of another world or what became of wicked people after death. The case report indicated that: The court rejected him, as being incompetent to be sworn; for that an oath is a religious asseveration, by which a person renounces the mercy, and imprecates the vengeance of heaven, if he do not speak the truth; and therefore a person who has no idea of the sanction which the appeal to heaven creates, ought not to be sworn as a witness in any court of justice. 103

(e) Burn -Text on Justice of the Peace (1820)
The standard legal text for JP's -Burn, The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer (1820 ed) 104 -stated: An oath is a solemn asseveration made as strong and binding as possible, in order to beget faith and confidence in others, as to the certainly of what is affirmed. When men swear, nothing can make their asseveration so strong and binding, as the invocation of God to be their witness or avenger. 105 Burn also referred to various statutory oaths current in 1820, the:  oath of allegiance (a military oath); 106  oath of supremacy (which came in at the Reformation, when papal authority was abolished); 107  oath of adjuration (abjuring the descendents of James II (1685-8) who abdicated); 108  declaration against transubstantiation (rejecting Catholic doctrine re the sacrament); 109  declaration against popery. 110 These oaths (apart from that of allegiance) no longer exist. 111 102 Distress at common law has been abolished. Thus, reference to sch 12 only is pertinent.

(f) Statutory Declarations Act 1835 & Oaths Act 1838
Given the increasing uncertainty as to when oaths were legally required, who should give them and what their form was, various Victorian Acts attempted piecemeal reform. Thus, the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 enabled many institutions such as the Treasury, Oxford and Cambridge colleges and other corporate bodies to change oaths they required into declarations. However, this was voluntary. Sections of this Act, which are still extant, dealt (and deal) with the following: . ' In any case where by any Act or Acts made or to be made relating to the revenues of custom or excise, …the office of stamps and taxes,…the war office, the army pay office, the office of the treasurer of the navy, …or the ordnance, his Majesty's Treasury, Chelsea Hospital, Greenwich Hospital, the Board of Trade, or any of the offices of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, the India board, the office for auditing the public accounts, the national debt office, or any office under the control, direction, or superintendence of the Treasury, or by any official regulation in any department, any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit might, but for the passing of this Act, be required to be taken or made by any person on the doing of any act, matter, or thing, or for the purpose of verifying any book, entry, or return or for any other purpose whatsoever, it shall be lawful for the Treasury, if they shall so think fit, by writing under their hands and seals, to substitute a declaration to the same effect as the oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, which might but for the passing of this Act be required to be taken or made; and the person who might under the Act or Acts imposing the same be required to take or make such oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, shall, in the presence of the commissioners, collector, other officer or person empowered by such Act or Acts to administer such oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, make and subscribe such declaration; and every such commissioner, collector, other officer or person, is hereby empowered and required to administer the same accordingly.' See also ss 3 (publication of declaration) & 4 (no oath to be administered in lieu where a declaration is given) . 113 Ibid, s 7 (oaths in courts of justice etc still to be taken) '…nothing in this Act shall extend or apply to any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, which now is or hereafter may be made or taken, or be required to be made or taken, in any judicial proceeding in any court of justice, or in any proceeding for or by way of summary conviction before any [JP or JP's]; but all such oaths, affirmations, and affidavits shall continue to be required, and be administered, taken, and made, as well and in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.' This proviso seems to now be obsolete. 114 Ibid, s 8 (Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and other bodies, may substitute a declaration into that of an oath) 'It shall be lawful for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for all other bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or statute or by any valid usage authorised to administer or receive any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, to make statutes, byelaws, or orders authorizing and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit now required to be taken or made: provided always that [such] be otherwise duly made and passed according to the charter, laws, or regulations of the particular university, other body corporate and politic, or other body so authorised as aforesaid.' 115 Ibid, s 14 (declaration substituted for oaths and affidavits required by the Bank of England on the transfer of stock) 'In any case in which it has been the usual practice of the Bank of England to receive affidavits on oath to prove the death of any proprietor of any stocks or funds transferable there, or to identify the person of any such proprietor, or to remove any other impediment to the transfer of any such stock or funds, or relating to the loss, mutilation, of defacement of any bank note…no such oath or affidavit shall in future be required to be taken or made, but in lieu thereof the person who might have been required to take or make such oath or affidavit shall make and subscribe a declaration to the same effect as such oath or affidavit.' 116 Ibid, s 13, see n 97. 117 Ibid, s 16 (declaration in writing sufficient to prove execution of any will, codicil etc). 'It shall and may be lawful to and for any attesting witness to the execution of any will or codicil, deed or instrument in writing, and to and for any other competent person, to verify and prove the signing, sealing, publication, or delivery of any such will, codicil, deed, or instrument in writing, by such declaration in writing made as aforesaid; and every such justice, notary, or other officer shall be and is hereby authorised and empowered to administer or receive such declaration.' Section 15 refers to legislation now repealed. 118 Ibid, s 17 (suits on behalf of his Majesty to be proved by declaration) 'In all suits now depending or hereafter to be brought in any court of law by or on behalf of [HM], in any of [HM's] territories, plantations, colonies, possessions, or dependencies, for or relating to any debt or account, [HM] shall and may prove his debts and examine his witness or witnesses by declaration, in like manner as any subject or subjects is or are empowered or may by this present Act.' ilr.ccsenet.org International Law Research Vol. 9, No. 1; 2020 For its part, the Oaths Act 1838 (now repealed) dealt with the legal effect when an oath giver failed to use the prescribed form. 120 It provided: in all cases in which an oath may lawfully be and shall have been administered to any person, either as a juryman or a witness, or a deponent in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in any court of law or equity in the [UK], or on appointment to any office or employment, or on any occasion whatever, such person is bound by the oath administered, provided the same shall have been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as such person may declare to be binding; and every such person in case of wilful false swearing may be convicted of the crime of perjury in the same manner as is if the oath had been administered in the form and with the ceremonies most commonly adopted. (italics supplied)

(g) Later Victorian Legislation on Oaths: 1851-71
Reference may also be made to the following Victorian legislation which is still extant:  Evidence Act 1851, s 16 (every court, judge, JP, officer, commissioner of oaths, arbitrator, or other person having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive and examine evidence, is empowered to administer an oath to all such witnesses as are legally called before them respectively);  Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (deals with oaths required of peers and MP's, see 24);  Parliamentary Witnesses Act 1871 (deals with oaths required of parliamentary witnesses). 121

OATHS COMMISSION 1867 (a) 1867 Report
By later Victorian times, the legal situation as to oaths was still confused. Especially, as to what oaths were legally required and their form. Thus, an Oaths Commission was appointed (indeed, there were two). The royal patent for the Commission in 1866 stated: We have deemed it expedient that a Commission should issue to inquire what oaths, affirmations and declarations are required to be taken or made by any of our subjects in the [UK], other than those to be taken or made by members of either House of Parliament, or by prelates or clergy of the established church, or by any person examined as a witness in any court of justice, or in any criminal or other proceeding before justices or otherwise of a judicial nature; and to report their opinion whether any and which of such oaths, affirmations, and declarations may be dispensed with, and whether any or what alteration may be made in the terms of such as it may be necessary to retain. 122 The Report of the Oaths Commission (the '1867 Report') is useful to indicate the position as to oaths, affirmations and declarations existing in later Victorian times. It is, also, the best starting point to consider what should be the legal position today. The background to the Report was not only that the legal situation as to the nature -and giving -of oaths had become confused. There were, also, a growing number of Victorians who were atheist, agnostic or of faiths other than that of the Christian religion. Further, in some cases, there were reservations by various persons in respect of giving any oath to the Crown (in Ireland, this was against a background of many Irish advocating the independence of Ireland -with, or without, the Queen as sovereign). The 1867 Report referred to a great volume of oaths being given on a daily basis. Although, it did not analyse the legality of these, many would seem not to have been authorised by the common law (that is, recognised by 119 Ibid, s 18 (voluntary declaration in the form in the schedule may be taken) 'It shall and may be lawful for any [JP], notary public, or other officer now by law authorised to administer an oath, to take and receive the declaration of any person voluntarily making the same before him in the schedule to this Act annexed.' The declaration in the schedule was: 'I [X] do solemnly and sincerely declare, that and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made and passed in the year of the reign of his present Majesty, intitled 'An Act (here insert the title of this Act).' Section 19 dealt with fees. 120 Interesting, this reflected older Jewish practice, see ns 80 & 82. 121 Section 1 (examination of witnesses on oath by the House of Commons and committees of the House) 'The House of Commons may administer an oath to the witnesses examined at the bar of the said House. Any committee of the House of Commons may administer an oath to the witnesses examined before such committee. Any oath…under this Act may be administered by the Speaker of the House of Commons, or by such person or persons as may from time to time be appointed for that purpose either by him or by any Standing Order or other Order of the said House.' Section 3 (as to additional power or privilege of House of Commons).' Nothing in this Act shall be held to confer any additional or further power or privilege on the Commons House of Parliament with reference to impeachment or other criminal jurisdiction or otherwise howsoever than is herein expressly enacted) This s 3 appears obsolete. 122 Report of the Oaths Commission (Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1867). The terms of the two Commissions were the same, pp iii & vi. the common law courts or by legislation. Therefore, following Coke (see 8), in strict legal terms, they were unlawful. Many oaths being utilised were, also, voluminous and couched in archaic language -some of which wording did not make much sense or which was impossible of fulfilment. In the 1867 Report, the Commission stated: We find that, although recent legislation has abolished certain oaths and converted others into declarations, 123 the number of oaths still required to be taken is exceedingly large. Of these, many appear to us unnecessary, some even mischievous. We believe that every requirement of an unnecessary oath tends to detract from the solemnity of necessary oaths. 124 Further, we conceive that to maintain the solemnity of oaths the terms of every oath should be precise and exact; and that where altered circumstances have rendered some of the engagements needless or impossible of fulfilment the oath ought, if it be retained, to be cleared of these obsolete or impossible engagements. 125 The Commission did not consider oaths given in a judicial (court) context. In respect of the others, the Commission categorised them into:  oaths of allegiance; and  oaths of fidelity to an office.
The Commission believed that the oath of allegiance should be retained in the case of all great national offices of state. 126 Also, by army recruits -to 'quicken and maintain their loyalty.' 127 In the case of the oaths of fidelity (where a person swore they would faithfully perform some public office), the Commission believed that it should be retained for judges of the superior courts and for jurymen only and that all other oaths should be abolished or changed into declarations. The Commission also indicated that oaths (or declarations) framed to exclude those of a particular religious faith from particular offices (mainly, Catholics and Jews) should be abolished and that any exclusion should now be made in the form of legislation rather than, indirectly, by oath or declaration. 128

(b) Oaths Commission -Dissenters
There were four dissenting opinions to the 1867 Report. Three of these are of little significance today since they fell away with the 1868 Act. 129 However, the dissent of five members to the Report are, historically, much more interesting. They concluded: A careful examination of the oaths referred to this Commission has led us to the conclusion that by far the greater number ought to be wholly abolished; and the rest changed into some convenient and distinct forms of declaration. 130 In respect of oaths of allegiance, in particular, the dissentients noted: Oaths of allegiance have seldom, if ever, been found to be of any practical benefit to the persons or the institutions whose safety and stability it has been sought to maintain by imposing them. In peaceful and prosperous times they are not needed; in times of difficulty and danger they are not observed…These oaths are open to the further objection that they tend to spread an erroneous view of the relation which exists between the State and the citizen, and to suggest the notion that those who take them are bound to certain obligations from which their fellow-subjects who have not taken them are exempt. Framed for the purpose of ensuring the loyalty and obedience of one class of persons, the effect of these oaths on others may be to lead them to question the fact that these duties are incumbent upon all. 131 (italics supplied) In respect of oaths of fidelity, they noted: Oaths of fidelity in the discharge of duties appear to us not defensible on the grounds of public necessity or advantage on which other oaths have been established and are maintained…An oath can no more furnish a public servant with a conscience than with intellectual capacity; yet the theory of its administration seems to imply that, sworn, he will probably do that which, unsworn, he would leave undone, and that the oath can create the sense of duty, to which, in fact, it only appeals…Promissory oaths are, in our opinion, not only useless, but hurtful to public morality. They are, or ought to be, administered with all the solemnity which attaches to oaths administered in courts of justice. Yet many are still administered which neither are, nor are intended to be, nor can be observed, and of which the words can hardly fail to raise a smile on the faces of those who impose and those who take them. Such oaths are an offensive mockery tending to discredit a solemn ceremony, which it is highly important should not be discredited….We are…of opinion that promissory oaths should in all cases be abolished, and that in those few and special cases where it appears desirable that a promise should be made, it should be made in the form of a declaration… 132 (italics supplied) Thus, as can be seen, these dissentients believed that most promissory oaths should be abolished (they were not dealing with oaths given in legal proceedings which were affirmatory (declaratory)). And that those retained should be in the form of declarations.

(c) Conclusion
The opinion of the dissentients had much common sense and merit. After all, there was little point in going through the formality and administration of an oath, if there was no penalty for breach. Or, if the person did not believe in a deity appealed to. Or, if the person -while believing in a deity -did not believe that any moral punishment would flow from a breach of the oath. Or, if a solemn ceremony was treated with levity (or the oath with contempt). 133 As it is, while not upholding the opinion of the dissentients, the 1867 Report made detailed recommendations as to: (a) what oaths (and declarations) should be abolished; (b) what oaths (and declarations) should be retained without alteration; (c) what oaths should be altered; (d) in which cases declarations should be substituted for oaths; (e) those oaths (and declarations) for which shorter forms of declaration should be substituted. 131 Ibid, pp xv-xvi. 132 Ibid, pp xvi-ii. The lack of solemnity and the number of oaths required had been adverted to by others such as the cleric RP Finch, Considerations upon the Use and Abuse of Oaths (1788), pp 19-20 who referred to the need to 'administer oaths with greater solemnity than is now usual; which is, indeed, shamefully neglected. Another, to appoint as few of them [oaths] as possible. Oaths given and taken frequently will be given and take irreverently, till at last many will regard them very little more than they do common swearing.' 133 Ibid, p xix. 'Oaths taken on important occasions have been violated by persons of all ranks, ecclesiastics as well as laymen, sometimes with the connivance or even with the approval of the authorities whose duty it was to watch over their fulfilment. They have been taken under circumstances which could hardly fail to bring them into contempt, and in various ways have been treated as unmeaning forms by those to whose opinion or example the public have been disposed or accustomed to defer. Declarations, as might be expected, have been as nugatory as oaths. Few have continued for any length of time to act as a bar against wrong; some have even been turned into a screen for abuses which they were intended to prevent; and some, even with penal consequences attached to their falsification, seem to have been made falsely from their very enactment.'

PROMISSORY OATHS ACT 1868
The 1868 Act was something of a compromise between the Commission on Oaths and its dissentient members. The 1868 Act, s 11, permitted a person who was required to take any of the above oaths, to give an affirmation instead. 134 It, also, dealt with a refusal to give any of the above oaths, s 7 (penalty on not taking required oath) stating: If any officer specified in the schedule hereto declines or neglects, when any oath required to be taken by him under this Act is duly tendered, to take such oath, he shall, if he has already entered on his office, vacate the same, and if he has not entered on the same be disqualified from entering on the same; but no person shall be compelled, in respect of the same appointment to the same office, to take such oath or make such affirmation more times than one. 135 The problem with the 1868 Act is that it left various matters unresolved. For example:  Oath Retained. The Act -by still requiring an oath -failed to consider whether it would have not been (much) simpler to have replaced the above oaths, and all others, with a statutory declaration. This, to save the time and costs of administration as well as uncertainty and confusion, especially in the religious context;  Penalty for Breach. The Act failed to indicate what would happen, legally (i.e. the punishment, sanction) if a person breached their oath (as opposed to refused to give it);  Those Required to give an Oath. The list of those required in the 1868 Act to give oaths of allegiance and official oaths (i.e. oaths of fidelity, including judicial oaths), was quixotic -missing out persons who might be, otherwise, expected to be required to give the same;  Form of the Oath. The form of the oaths set out in the 1868 Act was opaque, archaic and uncertain in law. For example, the words 'be faithful' and 'true' 136 in the oath of allegiance meant very little legally. Especially, when the system of Norman land tenure (based on homage and fealty) was obsolete in practice by 1868. The words 'well and truly' in the oath of fidelity -and the words 'do right' and 'usages' etc in the judicial oath -also, meant little (probably the words 'do right' were the archaic version of 'do justice').  What Oaths required at Common Law. The 1868 Act failed to indicate what oaths were still required at common law -leaving this uncertain.

In conclusion, the 1868 Act simplified the oath of allegiance, the official oath and the judicial oath. However, it failed to consider whether the latter two were of use. Further, it retained the oath -instead of replacing it wholly with a statutory declaration, which would have avoided religious considerations.
134 1868 Act, s 11 'When an oath is required to be taken under this Act, every person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration instead of taking an oath may, instead of taking such oath, make a solemn affirmation in the form of the oath hereby appointed, substituting the words 'solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm' [for] 'So help me God.' 135 For the consequences of refusing or neglecting to give an affirmation (declaration), see s 13 (it was of similar purport to s 11). 136 This word would seem to refer to 'unconditional' allegiance, repeating the concept of 'liege' in 'allegiance', see Pollock & Maitland, n 4, vol 1, p 298. However, this only referred to a person who owed allegiance both to the Crown (the king) and to a lord (mesne lord); thus, stressing that unconditional allegiance was owed to the former as opposed to the latter (especially, in the case of civil war). By 1868, mesne lords were obsolete, in practice. So, too, in practice, paying homage and fealty.

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO OATHS 1888 -1977 (a) Legislative Changes: 1888
After the 1868 Act, various legislative attempts were made to further ameliorate the position (it being, retrospectively, realised that there was much merit in what the dissentients in the 1867 Report argued for). Thus, the Oaths Act 1888 137 sought to cater for persons who had: (a) no religious belief; or (b) for whom the giving of an oath would be contrary to such. It provided for the giving of an affirmation as an alternative to an oath in all situations (including in legal proceedings), s 1 stating: Every person upon objecting to be sworn, and stating, as the ground of such objection, either that he has no religious belief, or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief, shall be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath in all places and for all purposes where an oath is or shall be required by law, which affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as if he had taken the oath… 138 (italics supplied) A further section (s 3), provided that: Where an oath had been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom the same was administered had, at the time of taking such oath, no religious belief, shall not for any purpose affect the validity of such oath. (italics supplied) However, the effect of s 3 contradicted the very nature of an oath which -since time immemorial -comprised a religious affirmation (declaration) made in the fear of moral punishment by a deity. Thus, it would have been better if the Oaths Act 1888 had abolished all oaths and substituted a declaration (affirmation) instead.

(b) Legislative Changes: 1888-1977
Further piecemeal legislation in the period 1888-1961, followed, viz:  Oaths Act 1909. It clarified the means of administering an oath; 139  Oaths Act 1961. It provided that a person might be required (as well as permitted) to affirm when it was not reasonably practicable (without inconvenience or delay) to administer an oath in the manner appropriate to his religious belief; 140  Administration of Justice Act 1977 (the 'AJA'), s 8. It widened the Oaths Act 1888, s 1, to state that: 'Any person who objects to being sworn shall be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath in all places and for all purposes where an oath is or shall be required by law, which affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as if he had taken the oath.' (italics supplied) In short, by 1977, more than 100 years after the 1868 Act, the law had become that a person could give an affirmation in lieu of an oath in all circumstances where an oath was legally required. And that -even if a person gave an oath -it did not matter if they had any religious belief or not. This latter position (Oaths Act 1888, s 3) should have led to oaths being replaced by declarations since it made the giving of an oath something of an absurdity (it would not seem appropriate for a person to make statements for legal purposes which they do not believe in). Before me.' The problem with this wording is that the words 'solemnly, sincerely, and truly [unconditionally] declare' add nothing to the word 'affirm' (itself, a synonym for 'declare'). Such wording originated from the 1868 Act, s 11 (rep), see n 134. 139 Section 2(1) 'Any oath may be administered and taken in the form and manner following: The person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament, or in the case of a Jew, the Old Testament, in his uplifted hand, and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words 'I swear by Almighty God that…', followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law.

In conclusion, none of Oaths Acts 1888-1977 considered the root issue of whether it was useful to retain an oath (being a religious affirmation) when it may have been better to turn the same into a declaration. Nor did
(2) The officer shall (unless the person about to take the oath voluntarily objects thereto, or is physically incapable of so taking the oath) administer the oath in the form and manner aforesaid without question: provided that, in the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any way which is now lawful.' The uplifted hand (in prayer) seem to derive from Babylonian and Assyrian practice, see n 19. 140 Section 1(1)'The Oaths Act 1888…shall apply in relation to a person to whom it is not reasonably practicable to administer an oath in the manner appropriate to his religious belief as it applies in relation to a person objecting to being sworn on any such ground as is mentioned

OATHS ACT 1978
In the period 1868-1977, the 'half-way house' laid down in the 1868 Act continued. However, this became problematic given an increasing decline in religiosity in England in post-Victorian times. Further, many oaths that were given (in some (or many) cases, regardless of any legal basis) in the case of guilds, schools, universities etc -such as were referred to in the 1867 Report -died out in the period 1868-1977, as a matter of practice. 141 The Oaths Act 1978 was a good opportunity to wholly replace oaths with statutory declarations. Also, to further reduce the number of the same. However, the Act simply consolidated and repealed the Oaths Acts of 1838, 1888, 1909 and 1961 and s 8 of the AJA 1977, re-enacting the same in the following provisions:  Manner of Administration of Oaths. S 1(1) 'Any oath may be administered and taken in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in the following form and manner: The person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament, or, in the case of a Jew, the Old Testament, in his uplifted hand, and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words "I swear by Almighty God that . . . . . .", followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law. (2) The officer shall (unless the person about to take the oath voluntarily objects thereto, or is physically incapable of so taking the oath) administer the oath in the form and manner aforesaid without question. (3) In the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any lawful manner. (4) In this section "officer" means any person duly authorised to administer oaths.'  Swearing with Uplifted Hand. S 3. 'If any person to whom an oath is administered desires to swear with uplifted hand, in the form and manner in which an oath is usually administered in Scotland, he shall be permitted so to do, and the oath shall be administered to him in such form and manner without further question.'  Validity of Oaths. S 4(1) 'In any case in which an oath may lawfully be and has been administered to any person, if it has been administered in a form and manner other than that prescribed by law, he is bound by it if it has been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as he may have declared to be binding. (2) Where an oath has been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom it was administered had, at the time of taking it, no religious belief, shall not for any purpose affect the validity of the oath.'  Making of solemn Affirmations. S 5(1) 'Any person who objects to being sworn shall be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath. (2) [ss] (1) above shall apply in relation to a person to whom it is not reasonably practicable without inconvenience or delay to administer an oath in the manner appropriate to his religious belief as it applies in relation to a person objecting to be sworn.
(3) A person who may be permitted under [ss] (2) above to make his solemn affirmation may also be required to do so. (4) A solemn affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as an oath.'  Form of Affirmation. S 6(1) 'Subject to [ss] (2) below, every affirmation shall be as follows: "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm," and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness. (2) Every affirmation in writing shall commence: "I, of [ ], do solemnly and sincerely affirm," and the form in lieu of the jurat shall be "Affirmed at this day of 19 , Before me." In conclusion, since the Oaths Act 1978 continued to provide that a person having no religious belief could give an oath -something of an absurdity 142 -it would have been more appropriate to abolish all oaths and replace them with declarations. Also, to abolish all oaths at common law. And, to limit the number of statutory declarations required. Thus -rather like the 1868 Act, the Oaths Act 1978 left the law as clear as mud.

OATHS TODAY (a) Modern Definition of an Oath
Walker, The Oxford Companion to Law, in 1980, defined an oath as: 141 Cf. Tyler, n 9, p 70 (writing in 1834) 'I would… recommend the abolition of all oaths administered to members of our universities as such.' Oaths 'died out' (i.e. they were allow to lapse or they were formally dispensed with) since the institutions themselves no longer existed or -if they continued -they no longer sought to promote the giving of an oath (or an affirmation instead) prior to a person taking up an office with the institution. 142 Stroud, n 3, vol 3, (oath) 'An oath is a religious affirmation, by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of heaven if he do not speak the truth' quoting R v White (1786), see 9(d).
An assertion or promise made in the belief that supernatural retribution will fall on the taker if he violates what he swears to do...Many forms of oath are taken, among the most notable being the coronation oath, the oath of allegiance, the judicial oath, oaths taken by privy councillors, by peers on their creation, by MPs before sitting or voting, by archbishops and bishops, by aliens on naturalization, by jurors, and by witnesses before giving evidence…In many cases, persons who object to being sworn, having no religious belief, are entitled to make a solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath, with the same force and effect… As religious belief diminishes there is increasing doubt nowadays whether taking an oath has any effect on many witnesses, and whether the practice should be continued. 143 (italics supplied) That statement was made nearly 40 years ago. As it is, the position on oaths has not changed from the Oaths Act 1978. Oaths are still with us.

(b) Administration of Oaths
In respect of their administration, from a remote period, notaries exercised the right to administer oaths and take affidavits. 144 Affidavits comprise written, sworn, statements of evidence used in judicial proceedings. The manner of administering oaths in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is regulated by the Oaths Act 1978 which... provides that any oath may be administered and taken in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the following form and manner: that is to say, the person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament, or in the case of a Jew, the Old Testament, in his uplifted hand, and shall say, or repeat after the officer administering the oath, the words 'I swear by Almighty God that…' followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law. 147 In the case of the administration of oaths out of England in connection with English proceedings, the text provides: By s 3(1) of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889, any oath or affidavit required for the purpose of any court or matter in England, or for the purpose of the registration of any instrument in any part of the [UK], may be taken or made in any place out of England before any person having authority to administer an oath in that place. Persons who by English law have authority to administer oaths overseas include commissioners for oaths holding office in England and Wales and certain British diplomatic and consular officials. 148 The modern law on oaths is laid down in Halsbury's Laws, albeit -as may be expected -there is no analysis as to whether oaths are worth retaining. 149

OATHS -WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ?
As previously discussed, the law on oaths is unnecessarily complex and it has had a troubled history. It is asserted that all oaths, today, should be wholly abolished and replaced by declarations (which word is more easily understood, and used, than the word 'affirmation' today those set out by the dissentients in the 1867 Report. However, they are even more compelling in modern times given the increasing decline in religiosity and the fact that we live in an electronic age. Thus:  Oath is a Religious Declaration. The quintessence of an oath is that it comprises a religious declaration (affirmation). One in which a person tells the truth since they have a real fear of moral retribution by a deity, if they do not. Thus, it is inappropriate to utilise the same in the case of atheists and agnostics. Also, in the case of Christians (and those of other religions), if they have no fear of sacrilege as well as in the case of those who do not understand the true nature of an oath;  Oaths -Religious Objections. An oath is, also, not appropriate for those with religious objections.
Thus, Christ deprecated the use of oaths and many Christians believe that his words were intended to apply generally;  Oaths -Not Enforceable. In the legal context, it is somewhat pointless to require an oath when there is no legal sanction for refusing to give the same. Or, where, there is no legal sanction for breach. Thus, there are no legal sanctions for the breach of the coronation oath or the breach of the oaths referred to in the 1868 Act -(i.e. an oath of allegiance, official oath or judicial oath; or the affirmations in lieu) since the same do not constitute perjury (or any other crime or civil offence) in the case of breach; 150  Oaths -Refusal/Neglect. The crime (penalty) of praemunire -which was, also, imposed for refusing to give certain statutory oaths -has been abolished. 151 Thus, there is no penalty in refusing or neglecting to give any oath unless legislation so provides (as in the case of the 1868 Act);  Unlawful Oaths. As Coke pointed out (see 8), oaths are only lawful if sanctioned by the common law or legislation (otherwise, it is a 'high contempt' (i.e. a misdemeanour) to seek to administer one). However, many oaths still sought (likely) have no legal basis. Thus, strictly, they are unlawful;  Form of Oath. The Oaths Act 1978 makes it clear that the form of the oath (or affirmation in lieu) need not be followed. Thus, there is little point in stipulating one. Further, the form of most oaths remains unclear, with little (or no) real legal significance. Therefore, if retained, their form should be further simplified;  Oaths at Common Law. What oaths are still required at common law is uncertain. They all appear to be legislative now or they are obsolete (such as oaths of homage and fealty). 152 Thus, any legal requirement for an oath at common law should be abolished;  Time and Cost. Oaths (and affirmations) incur administrative time and cost. This is pointless if they are not required legally or -even if legally required -their retention is unnecessary.
In conclusion, this article argues that the dissentients in the 1867 Report got things right, in hindsight. As a result, all oaths should be abolished and replaced by statutory declarations. And, there should be very few of the latter. Such will help clarify the law as well as save time and administration. Further, there is no indication that any member of the public (or any lawyer) would object -save for those who make substantial sums from administering oaths. However, are there any persons making such a living today?

WHAT OATHS SHOULD BE RETAINED ?
What oaths should be retained in modern times ? The position may be summarised as follows:  Coronation Oath. This should become a declaration, shorn of religious content as it originally was. One in which the sovereign agrees to uphold the law (see 17);  Oath of Allegiance. This should become a declaration (one which can be given orally or in writing).
One only required to be given by:  Perjury.

OATHS TODAY -CORONATION OATH
A prior article has analysed the nature, and history, of the coronation oath in detail. 153

(a) Form of the Coronation Oath
When the coronation oath was first utilised in Anglo-Saxon England is unclear. However, the oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan (959-88 AD) at the coronation, in 973 AD, of king Edgar (959-75 AD) -which oath was threefold (tria precepta) -is recorded as being as follows (being translated from the Latin into English): These three things I promise in Christ's name to the Christian people subject to me: 154 In the first place, that to the utmost of his power he will employ his might to secure and will enjoin that true peace shall be maintained for the church of God and all Christian people throughout his reign. Secondly, that he will forbid rapacity to his subjects of all degrees. Thirdly, that he will cause all judgments to be given with equity and mercy, so that he may himself be shown the mercy of a clement and merciful God, in order that by his justice all men may enjoy unbroken peace.' This wording may be compared with the oath of king Edgar in 973 AD (given more than 270 years before) since it (likely) sought to track the same. The development of a coronation oath appears to have arisen in the Visigothic kingdom in the 5-8 th century and then spread. 158 As Kern noted, the form of the oath varied and its essential purport was the duty of the sovereign to uphold (defend) the law in general. 159 Thus, it was not intended to have an especially specific religious import and references to such were later 'add ons'. Because there was uncertainty as to the form of the oath by the time of the 'Glorious Revolution' (1688) 160

) stating: 'and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that after the demise of [HM] (whom God long preserve) the sovereign next succeeding to [HM] in the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain and so for ever hereafter every king or queen succeeding and coming to the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain at his or her coronation shall in the presence of all persons who shall be attending assisting or otherwise then and there present take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the said settlement of the [CoE] and the doctrine worship discipline and government thereof as by law established within the kingdoms of England and Ireland the dominion of Wales and town of Berwick upon Tweed and the territories thereunto belonging.'
This was inserted into the coronation oath, see below.
Although the Coronation Oath Act 1688 laid down the form of the coronation oath, extra-legislatively, this form has changed over time 165 and that of Elizabeth II at the time of her coronation in 1953 was as follows: [1] Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the [UK] of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, 158 F Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages (1968, trans SB Crimes), pp 75-6 'Solemn promises by a prince before he began to rule were here and there customary as early as the period of the folk-migrations, but apparently there were no durable rules with regard to such undertakings, until clerical influence gave rise to fixed traditions. This seems to have occurred first in the Visigothic kingdom. When, in the ninth century, the ceremonies for the inauguration came under ecclesiastical influence in the Frankish kingdom, the solemn undertakings subscribed by the monarch before his coronation assumed a form which, within certain modifications, set the standard for Western monarchy.' 159 Ibid, p 77 'The coronation vows contained nothing to which the king was not otherwise bound. They simply re-affirmed the essential royal duty in which all the king's other duties were comprised: the duty to defend the law.' 160 G Crabb, A History of English Law (1829), p 558 'The old coronation oath, which was probably derived from the Saxons, and is referred to by ancient writers, was, as the statute [the Coronation Oath Act 1688] alleges, framed in doubtful terms with relation to ancient laws and constitutions.' The Coronation Oath Act 1688 states: 'Whereas by the law and ancient usage of this realm, the kings and queens thereof have taken a solemn oath upon the evangelists [i.e. the Bible] at their respective coronations, to maintain the statutes, laws, and customs of the said realm, and all the people and inhabitants thereof, in their spiritual rights and properties: but forasmuch as the oath itself on such occasion administered, hath heretofore been framed in doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws and constitutions at this time unknown…' 161 McBain, n 153, p 9. 162 Ibid, p 21. 163 This was also called an Act of 6 Anne 1706 c 8. 164 Ibid, s 3 (this Act to be part of any Treaty of Union). 'And this Act and all and every the matters and things therein contained be and shall for ever be holden and adjudged to be a fundamental and essential part of any Treaty of Union to be concluded between the said two kingdoms and also that this Act shall be inserted in express terms in any Act of Parliament which shall be made for settling and ratifying any such Treaty of Union and shall be therein declared to be an essential and fundamental part thereof.' 165 The historical alterations are discussed in detail in McBain, n 153. and of your possessions and the other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
[2] Will you to your power 166 cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgements? [3]  Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel ?  Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the [ As with the oath of King Edgar, that of Elizabeth II was tri-partite. However, her third oath mainly stems from 1688 and later, with only her first two oaths echoing back to the coronation oath of king Edgar in 973 AD. 168

(b) Need to Change the Form of the Coronation Oath
The form of the first oath will need to be changed in the case of any successor to the present sovereign. 169 However, there are general problems with the coronation oath in any case, today:  The first is that it is not legally binding (enforceable) and never was;  The second is that the sovereign -with regard to the first oath -does not really 'govern' as she did in times past, especially in the case of non-UK countries. Her power, today, is ceremonial (formal) rather than executive; 170  The third, is that -with regard to the second oath -(the sovereign promising to cause her 'judgements' (presumably, this refers to her decisions as sovereign) to be executed according to 'law and justice'this means little today since the sovereign no longer has any judicial power 171 and she only takes decisions under advice;  The fourth is that, as regards the third oath -which is wholly religious -such was predicated on the sovereign having the legal power to prevent (that is, to 'maintain' or 'preserve'), change or dispense with legislation relating to the CoE. However, the sovereign no longer has such power. Indeed, since 1688, Parliament has been supreme and it may make, and repeal, legislation as it will without regard to the opinion of the sovereign (her role being formal now). Therefore, this oath is much of a brutum fulmen;  The fifth is that, as regards the third oath -such is predicated on the sovereign being a Protestant and, more especially, a member of the CoE (or, possibly, only adhering to its doctrine). However, today, the sovereign may not, privately, be -or wish to be -of any religion or of the Protestant religion (including 168 The second oath of Elizabeth II reflects most clearly the third oath of Edgar, see n 157. 169  to not also apply to the sovereign. Thus, a requirement to give the third oath may not be appropriate;  The sixth is that, as regards the third oath, it is not old. It was not in the oath given by king Edgar in Anglo-Saxon times (see above). Further, the wording as to the 'protestant reformed religion established by law' was only added by the Coronation Oath Act 1688. 173 Similarly, the wording 'And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the [CoE], and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England ?' was only inserted by virtue of the Maintenance of the Church of England Act 1706 (and repeated in the Union with Scotland Act 1706) in a more extended version -which version was, subsequently, reduced in scope to reflect the dis-establishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871 and the Church in Wales in 1920;  The seventh is that the CoE (and any other Protestant denomination) is Christian and Christ (it appears) deprecated the giving of oaths (it seems, on the basis, that it was an invitation to people to, then, seek to avoid them). Thus, a coronation oath may not be appropriate and a declaration (instead of an oath) less problematic, today.
For the above reasons, it is asserted that consideration should be given to changing the coronation oath into a declaration and making it more in accord with the original oath of king Edgar in 973 AD. In particular, that the third oath -which means that the sovereign promises to uphold the 'established' (a reference to the legal) status of the CoE as a State church -be excised. This, on the grounds indicated above. Particularly, on the basis that such an oath is not legally binding (that is, there is no legal sanction for breach) and that the sovereign has no longer any power (legal, judicial or executive) over such matters. Also, that it is not especially appropriate in modern times when the sovereign should be entitled to be of such religion as he (or she) wishes (or of no religion at all) -just like everyone else.

(c) Declaration (Affirmation) on Accession
Besides a coronation oath (and regardless of whether the sovereign has a coronation or not), a new sovereign gives a declaration (affirmation) on accession. The declaration is a religious one, the form being, as Halsbury notes: I [monarch's name] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the throne of my realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law. 174 The meaning of the words 'faithful protestant' is unclear. So too, whether the sovereign has to 'do' anything about it being such (i.e. to attend church etc). Further, unlike the coronation oath, this declaration is not old. It derives from the religious disturbances in the reign of Charles II (1660-85) who was, nominally, a Protestant but (probably) a secret Catholic. The legal requirement to give such a declaration is contained in the Bill of Rights 1688 (still extant) which provides that: every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Crown sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the lords and commons therein assembled or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (whichever shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the [Second Test Act 1678]. 175 (spelling modernised) 172 Human Rights Act 1998, s 13 and Sch 1 (containing the Human Rights Convention, art 9 of which provides that: '1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others The need for a declaration arose from the religious hysteria emanating from the Popish Plot of 1678. The declaration required by the Second Test Act 1678 was avowedly anti-Catholic and did not refer to any other religion or Protestant sect. 176 By the 20 th century the language of this declaration (affirmation) was regarded as too offensive and the form presently used (see above) was substituted by the Accession Declaration Act 1910 which (it seems clear) left the wording opaque so as to satisfy some protestant non-conformists. However, there are problems with the current form of the oath, if retained, viz.  'Protestant'. On a narrow construction of this word, it means that the sovereign is affirming that he (or she) is a member of the CoE. This would also be a likely modern interpretation -given that the coronation oath of Elizabeth II is now (much) more directed to the CoE than hitherto (see the coronation oath wording above in (a) above) ; 177  'Faithful Protestant'. As for the word 'faithful', there are various possible meanings. For example, that the sovereign: (a) simply believes in the form of religion (doctrine) expounded by Protestants (or the CoE), but no more; or (b) is, also, a practising member (i.e. attends church, takes communion etc) at a Protestant (CoE) church; or (c) is, also, morally (religiously) upright. However, if one considers the personalities of the sovereigns who have given this declaration in the past, few can be said to have been much interested in (a) or (b) and a number did not meet (c); 178  'Uphold and Maintain'. The sovereign declares that he/she will 'uphold and maintain the said enactments to best of my powers according to law.' The reference to the 'enactments' seems clear enough. They refer to the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1700. However, the remaining wording means little since the sovereign, today, has no influence over legislation whether at an executive or a judicial level. Thus, the sovereign cannot prevent, change or dispense with legislation passed by Parliament which can repeal these Acts if so minded. The words 'uphold' and 'maintain'which are synonyms and (probably) mean the same as the word 'defend' -are someone vacuous and were (likely) so intended. 179 They also (probably) mean no more than similar wording in the coronation oath: 'Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the [UK] the protestant reformed religion established by law ?'

(d) Communion with the CoE
As well as the coronation oath (see (a) above) and the declaration required of a new sovereign (see (c) above), the Act of Settlement 1700, s 3, provides that: whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the [CoE] as by law established (italics supplied).
As to the meaning of the words 'in communion with' the CoE, this (likely) means membership of the same -a not unexpected requirement since the sovereign is the supreme governor of the CoE. 181 As a result, the coronation oath and the declaration required of a new sovereign (likely) should, also, be construed as only referring to the CoE (this, post-1706). 176 Thus, the Bill of Rights 1688 provided the following declaration: 'I [the sovereign], do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for the purpose by the pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.  [And] They shall forbid and repress in all estates and degrees robbery [reif] oppression and all kind of wrong.
In all judgments they shall command [and] procure that justice and equity be kept to all creatures without exception as the Lord and Father of all mercies be merciful to them. Given that this oath (which would only be given at a Scots coronation) endorses the CoS, and that it is prior to the Acts of 1707 above referred to, it may be appropriate for it now to be dispensed with, as obsolete.

(f) Title of 'Defender of the Faith'
The sovereign bears the title 'Defender of the Faith', a title originally given to Henry VIII (1509-47) by a Catholic pope. 186 It was confirmed by an Act of 1543-4 (now repealed). 187 Today, the reference to the 'faith' being defended is that of the CoE and -as to its being 'defended' -this reflects the coronation oath and the declaration in (c) above. Obviously, if they go, so should this title (it can be dispensed with by means of a Proclamation pursuant to the Royal Titles Act 1953). 188

(g) Conclusion
The coronation oath should become a declaration and be shorn of its religious content. Further, the:  declaration given to the CoE;  requirement that the sovereign be 'in communion with' the CoE;  title 'Defender of the Faith' ;  oath given to the CoS;  Scots Coronation Oath Act 1567, should, also, be dispensed with. Such would clear out much antiquated and opaque legislation.

OATH OF A REGENT
The Regency Act 1937 provides for a regency: (a) if the sovereign is under the age of 18 on his (her) accession; or (b) in the event of the total incapacity of the sovereign. 189 The Act also makes provision for the delegation of royal functions to a regent, with s 4 (oaths to be taken by, and limitations of power of, regent)(1) providing that: The regent shall, before he acts in or enters upon his office, take and subscribe before the Privy Council the oaths set out in the Schedule to this Act, and the Privy Council are empowered and required to administer those oaths and to enter them in the [Privy] Council books. 190 The oaths in the Schedule to the Act comprise the following:  I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to [here insert the name of the sovereign] his heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. [i.e. an oath of allegiance] 185 The original Scots version is: 'Item Because that the incres of vertew and suppressing of Idolatrie crauis that the Prince and the peple be of ane perfyte Religioun quhilk of Goddis mercie is now presentlie professit within this Realme Thairfoir it is statute and ordanit be our Souerane Lord my Lord Regent and thre Estatis of this present Parliament that all Kingis and Princes or magistratis quhatsumeuer halding thair place quhilkis heirefter in ony tyme sall happin to Regne and beir reule ouer this Realme at the tyme of thair coronatioun and ressait of thair princely authoritie mak thair faithfull promise be aith in presence of the eternall God that induring the haill cours of their lyfe thay sall serue the samin eternall God to the vttermaist of thair power according as he hes requyrit in his maist haly word reuelit and contenit in the new and auld Testamentis And according to the samin word sall mantene the trew Religioun of Jesus Christ the preicheing of his haly word and dew and rycht ministratioun of the Sacramentis now ressaifit and preichit within this Realme And sall abolische and gainstand all fals Religioun contrare to the samin And sall reule the pepill committit to thair charge according to the will and command of God reuelit in his foirsaid word and according to the louabill Lawis and constitutiounis ressaifit in this Realme nawyse repugnant to the said word of the eternall God And sall procure to the vttermaist of thair power to the Kirk of God and haill cristiane pepil trew and perfyte peice in all tyme cuming The rychtis and rentis with all iust priuilegeis of the Crowne of Scotland to preserue and keip inuiolatit nouther sal thay transfer nor alienat the samin Thay sal forbid and repres in all Estatis and degreis reif oppressioun and all kynde of wrang In all Jugementis thay sall command and procure that Justice and equitie be keipit to all creaturis without exceptioun as the Lord and father of all mercyis be mercifull to thame And out of thair landis and Empyre thay salbe cairfull to ruite out all Heretykis and enemeis to the trew worschip of God that salbe conuict be the trew Kirk of God of the foirsaidis crymis And that thay sall faithfullie affirme the thingis abone writtin be thair solempnit aith.' Lyall, n 182, p 16 the 1567 Act required 'all future monarchs to swear to protect the true church as established, and to root out all those opposed to its teaching. This was of more political than legal interest…' See also Ibid, p  Oaths, being religious, the reference to 'So help me God' is apposite. It is asserted that -as with the oath of allegiance and the oath of fidelity (official oath) in the 1868 Act -these oaths should no longer be required in the case of a regent. Not least, since they are not legally enforceable. Further, that the third oath -to maintain the CoE and the CoS -should also be dispensed with. Not least, in that a regent has no power over these matters.

OATHS OF HOMAGE & FEALTY (a) Concepts of Homage & Fealty
It is trite law that -as from the Norman Conquest (1066)   common socage service, 197 this, also, being the residual service tenure.
Thus, such tenants (about 1500 or so of them in 1086) -being in capite (i.e. holding directly of the Crown as tenants in chief) -were bound to the Crown for their land. These tenants in capite then, usually, sub-divided their land, giving it to free men (free tenants) who held it of them in return for services. All land tenure by way of service (invariably) included the giving of oaths of homage and of fealty in exchange for the same. As to the distinction between these (homage including fealty but fealty not, necessarily, including homage): 198  Homage. Homage created an obligation by the tenant to his lord to render assistance to the latter in return for protection. 199 Thus, a bond (also, called a ligament or tie) was formed between them. The oath of homage 200 -a military oath -tended to be only given if the tenure was that of knight service. However, it could also be given (more rarely) in the case of common socage. Homage (save in a ceremonial capacity at the coronation) was abolished by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 (there is a statutory exception, see below On the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953, 'homage' was (ceremonially) paid by peers. 202  Fealty. This created an obligation on the part of the tenant to his lord to faithfully perform the service he was obliged to perform. 203 Fealty did not apply in the case of frankalmoign, 204 but it could apply in the case of divine service. The legal writer, Littleton, stated as to fealty: This obligation -which also applies to an archbishop of the CoE -is required by the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533, s 4. 207 Although the reference is to homage and fealty, the latter is subsumed into the former. Thus, the obligation is one of homage.

(b) Conclusion
Homage was abolished in 1660, save in a ceremonial capacity. Further, fealty is obsolete in practice. Also, there is no good reason to preserve the obligation of homage in the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533, s 4 in the case of some CoE bishops but not others. The wording in that Act, therefore, should be repealed insofar as it refers to the same.
In conclusion, oaths of homage and fealty should be abolished.

OFFICIAL OATH (a) Nature of the Official Oath
The form of the official oath laid down in the 1868 Act, s 3, is:   Any minister in charge of a public department of HM's government in the UK who is not a member of the Cabinet and whose office is not specified elsewhere in sch 1;  The Minister for the Civil Service. 213 However, instead of an official oath, in all the above cases, an affirmation may be substituted. 214 The 1868 Act, s 12 also provides for a declaration in other cases:  Where before the passing of this Act [i.e. 1868] an oath was required to be taken by any person on or as a condition of accepting any employment or office in [HM's] honourable band of Gentlemen at Arms or bodyguard of Yeomen of the Guard, or in any other department of [HM's] household, in such case a declaration of fidelity in office shall be substituted, with the addition (in cases where it seems meet to [HM] by Order in Council to make such addition) of a declaration of secrecy to be observed by the declarant with respect to matters coming within his cognizance by reason of his employment or office.  Where before the passing of this Act [i.e. 1868] an oath was required to be taken by any person on or as a condition of accepting any office in or under a municipal corporation, or on or as a condition of admission to membership in or participation in the privileges of any municipal corporation, there shall be substituted for such oath, in the case of an office, a declaration that the declarant will faithfully perform the duties of his office, and in the case of admission to membership or participation in the privileges of a municipal corporation, a declaration that the declarant will faithfully demean himself as a member of or participator in the privileges of such corporation.  Where before the passing of this Act [i.e. 1868] an oath was required to be taken on or as a condition of admission to membership or fellowship or participation in the privileges of any guild, body corporate, society, or company, a declaration to the like effect of such oath shall be substituted: provided, that if any two or more of the members of such guild, body corporate, society, or company, with the concurrence of the majority of the members present and voting at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose, object to any statement contained in such declaration on the ground of its relating to duties which, by reason of change of circumstances have become obsolete, they may appeal to one of [HM's] Principal Secretaries of State to omit such statement, and the decision of such Secretary of State shall be final.  Where in any case not otherwise provided for by this Act or included within the saving clauses thereof an oath is required to be taken by any person on or as a condition of his accepting any employment or office, a declaration shall be substituted for such oath to the like effect in all respects as such oath.  The making a declaration in pursuance of this section instead of oath shall in all respects have the same effect as the taking the oath for which such declaration is substituted would have had if this Act had not passed.
The Statutory Declarations Act 1835, s 2 (see 9(e)), also, gives the Treasury power to substitute a statutory declaration where -under legislation relating to specified departments (or under departmental regulations) -an oath, solemn affirmation or affidavit is required to be made or taken. Where a statutory declaration has been substituted, an oath may not be administered. 215 Thus, in all instances an official oath (i.e. the oath of fidelity) can be replaced by an affirmation (declaration).

(b) Abolition of the Official Oath
The grounds for abolishing the official oath would seem plentiful: viz. (a) it is a statutory creation of 1868; (b) it means little and is opaque. Thus, what does 'I will well and truly serve [the sovereign]' mean ? (c) there is no legal penalty, or punishment, for breaching it (as opposed to refusing to take it); 216 (d) the list of those required to give it is quixotic with some offices no longer existing or being of little importance today; (e) in practice, it is often replaced by a declaration in lieu of the oath. 217 Thus, today, it can be described as a formality that takes up time and money and yet achieves nothing. If the official oath is abolished, should a declaration in lieu be retained ? The same grounds for the abolition of the former also apply to the latter. Thus, it should go too.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (a) Nature of Allegiance
The giving of an oath (declaration) of allegiance to the Crown (the sovereign) seems to have commenced in Anglo-Saxon times 218 and this practice (likely) came from the law of the Franks. 219  The oath of allegiance derived from the oaths of homage (which included fealty) and fealty. However, it was different from them, in that the 'liege' in 'allegiance', stressed that the bond of service to the Crown was unconditional -as opposed to homage and fealty which could be given to more than one lord (fealty could also be separate from homage but not the other way around). Thus, allegiance to the Crown (as 'liege lord') took precedence over homage and fealty; 220  Further, unlike homage and fealty, allegiance was general and not based on any landholding (tenancy).
Rather, it was (and always has been) a military oath 221 like homage. Thus, an oath of allegiance was not (in the past) given by a woman, a girl or a young boy (i.e. one under 12). Only by a man (one, not a slave); 222  Further, allegiance was (in time) perceived as a general, overriding, obligation owed by a subject to the Crown. 223 Thus, Coke noted that every man over the age of 12 was obliged to take the oath of 216 Tyler, n 9, p 258 (writing in 1834) 'All oaths of office are promissory oaths and…the law of England will not suffer a breach of them to be prosecuted as perjury'. He cited Coke, n 76, vol 3, p 74 and noted that: 'experience loudly and plainly tells us, that, in the generality of instances, they [oaths] have very little influence on the conduct of the sworn party.' Cf. Punishment for refusing to take the oath, see the 1868 Act, s 5 (penalty on not taking required oath). If any officer specified in the schedule hereto or any member of the Scottish Executive declines or neglects, when any oath required to be taken by him under this Act or section 84(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 is duly tendered, to take such oath, he shall, if he has already entered on his office, vacate the same, and if he has not entered on the same be disqualified from entering on the same; but no person shall be compelled, in respect of the same appointment to the same office, to take such oath…more times than one.' 217 Cf. Tyler, n 9, pp 66-8 (in 1834): 'the usual oaths of office, in almost every department, with some exceptions perhaps, I would gladly see abandoned, and without any apprehension of the slightest neglect of duty in consequence…I would say, that no man should ever be called upon even to promise to do what he is bound by the duties of his office to perform; on the contrary, it should in every way be declared, that every man has already promised to do his duty by the very act of accepting an office.' (italics supplied) 218 Cunningham, n 79, p 102 'In 917 the Lady of Mercia got possession of Derby and all that owed obedience thereto, and in the next year, Leicester, 'and the greater part of the army that owed obedience thereto became subject to her; and the people of York, some having given a pledge and some having bound themselves by an oath that they would be at her command.' Cunningham noted 'Commendations and oaths and military tenure seem here to be taking the place of the loyalty and discipline which had been previously secured by pledges and hostages.' 219 Plucknett, n 27, p 476. 220 Holdsworth, n 29, vol 3, p 56 'With the increase in the power of the State, the duty to the king as supreme lord -the duty of allegiancetakes precedence over the duty to the lord. William I [1066-89] insisted on the recognition of this principle, and his successors more than maintained his claims.' Holdsworth quotes the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in 1087 'he [William I] came to…Salisbury, and there came to him his witan, and all the landowning men of property that were over all England, whose soever men they were, and all bowed down to him and became his men, and swore oaths of fealty [actually, oaths of allegiance] to him that they would be faithful to him against all other men.' See also D Whitelock allegiance at the court leet (or sheriff's tourn). 224 This derived from Anglo-Saxon times. However, the clergy (priests) were not obliged to give an oath of allegiance until the Reformation, unless they gave it as part and parcel of an oath of homage. 225 In medieval times, an oath of allegiance could be rescinded by the giver of the same in various situations. For example, by diffidatio. That is, opposing the royal standard in battle, thereby, rejecting the right of the king to rule. Doing this, laid a person open to the charge of high treason -unless the sovereign renounced his right to be sovereign. 226 It was also possible for a person to invoke divine law in some circumstances, such as: (i) when asserting the illegitimacy of the asserted sovereign to the throne; or (ii) when asserting the sovereign's incapacity to retain the throne because he had failed to uphold the law. These were similarly hazardous. The concept of allegiance to the Crown, itself, experienced change over time, being allied to a changing jurisprudential analysis as to the right of the sovereign to rule.  Election. The sovereign in Anglo-Saxon times (following earlier Germanic practice) was elected. This, by means of the oral acclamation (consent) of his people (the 'folk'). 227 There was no hereditary right;  Feudal Bond. In English medieval times, the practice had changed. The sovereign was seen as having a feudal relationship (one of homage and fealty) with his subjects, involving mutual rights and obligations, especially that of mutual protection. Acclamation by the people faded, to be replaced by the endorsement of the claimant by the Catholic church and powerful nobles, with there being a degree of hereditary succession. Also, a right to 'passive' resistance if the sovereign failed to uphold the law; 228  Divine Right. By the 15 th century, a hereditary principle tended to develop. Later, in Stuart timesespecially in reigns of king James (1603-25) and the ill-fated king Charles I (1625-49) -there developed the concept of a 'divine right' to hereditary rule. However, this was counterbalanced by a right of the subject to exercise 'active' resistance against the sovereign if the same failed to uphold the law; 229  Contract. The jurisprudential analysis of a 'divine right' to rule was, itself, displaced by a 'contract' theory. This, in particular, after the 'Glorious' Revolution of 1688 (where there was also a marked tendency to read back a contract theory into the past). 230 The form of the oath of allegiance tended to reflect such transitions and it changed over time. 231 In respect of the oath of allegiance today, Halsbury states: Persons entering on certain offices are required by law to take the oath of allegiance, or an affirmation or declaration in lieu of the oath, in the manner provided by statute, and aliens becoming naturalised are also required to take the oath. The taking of the statutory oath does not add to the natural duty of a subject, who is in all cases bound as though he had taken the oath. 232 Refusal to take the oath in certain cases, however, entails disqualification from holding office, or vacation of the office if the person has already entered upon it, 233 whilst in the case of clerical orders and preferments the taking of the oath is a condition precedent to ordination, or to institution or collation or to the granting of a licence in the case of benefices.
As regards peers and members of Parliament, sitting or voting in either House without having first taken and subscribed the oath entails a fine [of £500] in certain cases. Where an oath of allegiance has been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom it was administered had at the time of taking the oath no religious belief does not affect the validity of the oath. 234 (italics supplied) However, in all cases where an oath of allegiance is required, an affirmation may be substituted, as in the case of the official oath (see above). 235 The form of the oath of allegiance laid down in the 1868 Act, s 2 provides: I [ ] do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance 236 to Her Majesty [ ], her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
The officials required to take the oath of allegiance are specified in the second part of a schedule to the Act and in other legislation. 237  In the case of Scotland, the:  Lord Justice-General and President of the Court of Session; 233 1868 Act, s 7 (penalty on not taking required oath) 'If any officer specified in the schedule hereto or any member of the Scottish Executive declines or neglects, when any oath required to be taken by him under this Act or section 84(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 is duly tendered, to take such oath, he shall, if he has already entered on his office, vacate the same, and if he has not entered on the same be disqualified from entering on the same; but no person shall be compelled, in respect of the same appointment to the same office, to take such oath…more times than one.' The same applies for the making of a declaration in lieu, Ibid, s 13. 234 Halsbury, n 16, vol 20, para 40. 235 See, in particular, the Oaths Act 1978, s 5 (persons to take the oath of allegiance and official oath). 'The oath of allegiance and official oath shall be tendered to and taken by each of the officers named in the first part of the schedule annexed hereto as soon as may be after his acceptance of office by the officer, and in the manner in that behalf mentioned in the said first part of the said schedule.' 236 The oath derives from the use of the word 'swear.' The word 'faithful' (likely, the word 'loyal' is a synonym) reflects the oath of fealty (faithfulness) from which the oath of allegiance derived. The word 'true' (likely) is a synonym for 'unconditional'. Thus, allegiance is owed to the sovereign, regardless of any oaths of homage or fealty given to other lords. 237 See also 1868 Act, s 6 (persons to take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath) 'The oath of allegiance and judicial oath shall be taken by each of the officers named in the second part of the said schedule hereto as soon as may be after his acceptance of office.' Those formerly included also comprised: The oath of allegiance alone has to be taken by members of both Houses of Parliament on taking their seats, and by certain other persons on entering office or acquiring a special status. From a practical point of view, the most important example is that of an alien on becoming a naturalised British subject. 242 (italics supplied) However, today, the above references to various to legal officials no longer include some of them.

(b) Abolishing the Oath of Allegiance
The oath, at base, is a military oath. One of the subject rendering military assistance (aid) to the sovereign, in return for protection. 243 Further, giving an oath of allegiance has nothing to do with whether a person, legally, owes allegiance to the sovereign. A person can owe allegiance to the same regardless of whether an oath has been given. And -although an oath may be given -later, it can be held that, as a matter of law, no allegiance was owed.  Thus, since the oath of allegiance is (at base) a military oath, there is little good legal reason for it being required of CoE priests. Or of notaries (but not solicitors or barristers). Or, of some judges (but not all). Further, the oath was only required for Privy Council members, MP's and peers by Tudor legislation. Therefore, consideration should be given as to all these persons being dispensed from the need to give it. They will still owe allegiance in any case (if British subjects or naturalised persons or in certain other cases); 244 238 The oath is tendered by the President of the Court of Session at a sitting of the court. 239  In short, today, this oath can be described as a formality that takes up time and money and yet achieves nothing. Thus, consideration should be given to abolishing the oath and wholly replacing it with a declaration instead. One employing more modern wording. Further, such a declaration (being one of military assistance) should only now be sought from, it is asserted: (a) members of the armed forces on enlistment; and (b) foreign persons, on naturalisation.
In conclusion, the oath of allegiance should be wholly replaced with a declaration of allegiance. One with more modern wording. One only required to be given by: (a) members of the armed forces and; (b) aliens on naturalisation.

JUDICIAL OATH (a) Form of Oath
The form of the judicial oath laid down in the 1868 Act, s 2 provides: I [ ] do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen [Elizabeth II] in the office of [ ], and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.
The officials required to take the judicial oath are specified in a schedule to the 1868 Act and they are the same as those relating to the oath of allegiance (see 21), as Halsbury notes: As soon as may be after their acceptance of office, the senior executive officers of state and members of the judiciary as specified by statute must take the oath of allegiance and [the] official or judicial oath, in the form and manner prescribed. The form of the judicial oath of the Lord Chancellor is slightly different. It provides: I [ ] do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. 247

(b) Abolishing the Oath
The grounds for abolishing the judicial oath are the same as in respect of the official oath. Further, much of the wording of the judicial oath has little import.
 Thus, what does 'I will well and truly serve' mean ? Probably, the word 'truly' means loyally -not 'unconditionally' (as opposed to the word 'true' in the oath of allegiance);  What does 'I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will' mean ? Probably, the word 'right' refers to justice -with the general 245 Better to say, 'I declare allegiance to [the sovereign]'. This is more intelligible since oaths of fealty and homage are legally obsolete today (although still given as a matter of ceremony in certain cases). Thus, the words 'faithful' (reflecting the oath of fidelity) and 'true' (reflecting the unconditionality of the allegiance, see text to n 220) are no longer required. 246 Halsbury, n 16, vol 20, para 597 and 1868 Act, s 6 ((persons to take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath) 'The oath of allegiance and judicial oath shall be taken by each of the officers named in the second part of the said schedule hereto as soon as may be after his acceptance of office.'(italics supplied) 247 For the form of the oath in the 17 th century, see Coke, n 76, vol 4, p 88. purport of the oath comprising a declaration to administer justice impartially without regard to the class of the person and not to accept bribes etc. 248 However, the fact that a judicial oath is not given by all judges does not mean that they are absolved from such obligations. For the same reasons given for the abolition of the official oath, the judicial oath (which is a form of official oath) should be abolished.

PRIVY COUNSELLOR'S OATH
Halsbury states: Privy counsellors are required to take the privy counsellor's oath or an affirmation in lieu of that oath. The substance of the oath is: (1) to be a true and faithful servant of the Crown; (2) not to countenance any word or deed against the monarch, but to withstand the same to the utmost of his power, and to reveal it to the monarch or the Privy Council; (3) to declare his true and faithful opinion upon all matters before the Privy Council; (4) to keep secret all matters revealed or treated of in the Privy Council; (5) not to reveal matters so treated of touching any of his colleagues with the consent of the monarch or the Privy Council; (6) to bear faith and allegiance to the Crown, and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates; and (7) generally to act as true and faithful servants of the Crown. 249 Presently, the form of the privy counsellor's oath is: declaration. One which also excludes those sub-oaths which comprise official oaths and the oath of allegiancenot least, since there is no punishment or penalty for breach (e.g. it is not high treason to breach one's oath of allegiance, per se). Thus, the Privy Councillor's oath should be reduced to one dealing with secrecy (and the wording be modernised). Further, perhaps, the oath should be written (i.e. the councillors sign a book) in order to save time and administration.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH
An Act for Administering the Oath of Allegiance 1609 (repealed) provided that no member of Parliament should be permitted to enter the same until he had taken an oath of obedience (including one of allegiance The requirement to take the oath of allegiance (a military form of oath) in Stuart times should be viewed against the background of the struggle for power between Parliament and the Crown. As previously noted (21(b)), it is asserted that such a requirement, today, is unnecessary and consideration should be given to dispensing with it, both in the case of peers and MP's.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND OATHS
As previously noted, diocesan bishops and archbishops make homage to the Crown as part of their consecration, pursuant to the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533 (see 19(a)). It has been asserted that such should be abolished, since making (paying) homage has been, generally, abolished since 1660. Those entering into holy orders (that is, becoming priests) also give an oath of: (a) allegiance; (b) canonical obedience. The former is required by legislation (the Clerical Subscription Act 1865), the latter provided in a Canon of the CoE. As to these: 252 7 Jac 1, c 6 (rep 1846). For the oath see 3 Jac 1, c 4 (1605, rep 1846). Crabb, n 160, p 503 'Another statute [7 Jac 1 c 6], which had particular reference to the papists, but which was of a general nature, was that which required all peers, privy councillors, judges, and other officers, before they entered upon the discharge of their several duties, as also all members of the House of Commons, before they took their seats, to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.' See also, generally, Condren, n 15, ch 13. 253  Other sections also provide:  S 5 (subscription and oath on institution to benefice, or licence to perpetual curacy, &c.) 'Every person about to be instituted or collated to any benefice, or to be licensed to any perpetual curacy, lectureship, or preachership, shall, before institution or collation is made or licence granted... take the said oath of allegiance and supremacy, in the presence of the archbishop or bishop by whom he is to be instituted, collated, or licensed, or the commissary of such archbishop or bishop.';  S 9 (no other declaration or oaths than those required by the Act to be enforced.) 'Subject as hereinafter mentioned, no person shall, on or as a consequence of ordination, or on or as a consequence of being licensed to any stipendiary curacy, or on or as a consequence of being presented, instituted, collated, elected, or licensed to any benefice with cure of souls, perpetual curacy, lectureship, or preachership, be required to make any subscription or declaration, or take any oath, other than such subscriptions, declarations, and oath as are required by this Act or by [a] Canon of the General Synod.' 257  S 12 (nothing to affect oath of canonical obedience to bishop, &c.)'Nothing in this Act contained shall extend to or affect the oath of canonical obedience to the bishop, or the oath of due obedience to the archbishop taken by bishops on consecration.' This Act does not extend to the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney and Sark; nor to the Isle of Man (s 13). Further, the oath of allegiance is not required of bishops consecrated to officiate in any foreign State; nor of overseas clergyman, see Canon C13 (of the oath of allegiance), which also provides for an affirmation in lieu of an oath (it follows the form in the 1868 Act). 258 As previously indicated, this requirement in respect of an oath of allegiance was a result of the Reformation, an oath formerly being given to the Pope by priests of the Catholic church in England. However, being a military oath, the oath of allegiance is not really appropriate for priests (and was not intended to be given by females in times past).

(b) Oath of Canonical Obedience
Canon C14 (of the oaths of obedience) states: 1. Every person whose election to any bishopric is to be confirmed, or who is to be consecrated bishop or translated to any bishopric, or suffragan bishopric, shall first take the oath of due obedience to the archbishop and to the metropolitical Church of the Province wherein he is to exercise the episcopal office in the form and manner prescribed in and by the Ordinal.
2. Either archbishop consecrating any person to exercise episcopal functions elsewhere than in England may dispense with the said oath.
3. Every person who is to be ordained priest or deacon, or to be instituted to any benefice, or to be licensed either to any lectureship, preachership, or stipendiary curacy, or to serve in any place, shall first take the oath of canonical obedience to the bishop of the diocese by whom he is to be ordained, instituted, or licensed, in the presence of the said bishop or his commissary, 256 The words 'of supremacy' are redundant since the oath now given is that set out in the 1868 Act. 257 The Act, s 11, states generally: (oaths not to be administered during ordination or consecration services.) 'No oath shall be administered during the service for the ordering of deacons, or during the service for the ordering of priests, or during the service for the consecration of archbishops and bishops.' 258 1. Every person whose election to any archbishopric or bishopric is to be confirmed, or who is to be consecrated or translated to any suffragan bishopric, or to be ordained priest or deacon, or to be instituted, installed, licensed or admitted to any office in the [CoE] or otherwise serve in any place, shall first, in the presence of the archbishop or bishop by whom his election to such archbishopric or bishopric is to be confirmed, or in whose province such suffragan bishopric is situate, or by whom he is to be ordained, instituted, or admitted, or of the commissary of such archbishop or bishop, take the oath of allegiance in the form following: This oath may be dispensed with for episcopal functions outside England (see 2 above). Also, it may be replaced with an affirmation. 260 Further, given Christ's injunction against oaths -and the fact that they are not legally binding -it may be apposite today to transmute this oath into a written (simplified) declaration. 261 Also, to combine it with the declaration of assent laid down in Canon C15 (making the same written and simplified -to save time and add to clarity). It may also be noted that the present canonical oath does not actually mean what it says since, in Long v Bishop of Capetown (1863), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Lord Kingsdown giving the judgment) stated that: the oath of canonical obedience does not mean that the clergyman will obey all the commands of the bishop against [i.e. in respect of ] which there is no law, but that he will obey all such commands as the bishop by law is authorised to impose. 262

PUBLIC NOTARY's OATH
A public notary, prior to admission, is required to give an oath required by the Public Notaries Act 1843, s 7, which states: Every person to be admitted and enrolled a public notary shall, before a faculty is granted to him authorizing him to practice as such…make oath before the said master of the faculties, his surrogate or other proper officer, in substance and to the effect following: I A.B. do swear, that I will faithfully exercise the office of a public notary; I will faithfully make contracts or instruments for or between any party or parties requiring the same, and I will not add or diminish any thing without the knowledge and consent of such party or parties that may alter the substance of the fact; I will not make or attest any act, contract, or instrument in which I shall know there is violence or fraud; and in all things I will act uprightly and justly in the business of a public notary, according to the best of my skill and ability.
However, no such oath (or declaration) is required in respect of an ecclesiastical notary or a European Economic Area notary. 263 Further, there is no such oath (or declaration) required for barristers or solicitors. Thus, this oath -which is similar to an official oath -should be dispensed with.
In conclusion, the Public Notaries Act 1843, s 7 should be repealed.

OATHS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In criminal proceedings, the oath of a juror is old. Older than that required of a witness, since the juror often included this role. 264 However, over time, the form of these oaths has became archaic and opaque. As to these:

(a) Juror
The standard work on oaths and affirmations in 1961, Fell 263 Halsbury, n 16, vol 66, para 1004 (s 7 is also prospectively repealed in relation to the Isle of Man). 264 Pollock & Maitland, n 4, vol 2, p 601 'Besides the oaths of litigants and their oath-helpers, the law also knew the oath of witnesses; but apparently in the oldest period it did not often have recourse to this mode of proof, and the oaths which those witnesses proferred were radically different from the sworn testimony that is now-a-days given in our courts. For one thing, it seems to have been a general rule that no one could be compelled, or even suffered, to testify to a fact, unless when the fact happened he was solemnly 'taken to witness.' Secondly, when the witness was adduced, he came merely in order that he might swear to a set formula. His was no promissory oath to tell the truth in answer to questions, but an assertory oath.' Members of the jury please stand up to be sworn. When your name is called, hold the Testament up in your right hand and read the oath aloud from the card. When you have taken the oath please sit down. I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the several issues joined between our sovereign lady the Queen and the prisoner at the bar and give a true verdict according to the evidence. 265 This legal text, also, noted that a collective oath might be made by the jurors (on a trial on indictment for felony or misdemeanour). Thus, the whole of the jury (or any two or more) might be sworn together. 266 Further, there were various variants -including the oath given by the court bailiff looking after the jurors and any interpreter. 267 Today, a juror gives the following oath (or affirmation) -assuming no other changes according to religion, age or whether mute etc: I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence. 268 The problem with such an oath is that it is a religious affirmation and, thus, not appropriate in a number of instances. Further, the words 'faithfully try' and 'give a true verdict' mean very little to non-lawyers -and, indeed, to many lawyers. 'Faithfully' harks back to the old oaths of homage and fealty (also, the official oath), in which a person declares that they will carry out their service obligations to their lord, in a loyal and honest manner. However, today, the essence of this oath has nothing to do really with loyal service to the Crown (the Queen) as over lord. Rather, it is a declaration by a person that they will be impartial and honest (that is, not be corrupt -such as accepting bribes to influence their verdict etc).

(b) Witness
Fell and Keats (see above) in 1961 also noted the form of oath given by a witness: I swear by Almighty God that I will true answer make to all such questions as shall be asked me, without favour or affection to either party, and therein I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 269 Today, the witness oath is: I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 270 The words 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' have a sonorous ring to them, like the Anglo-Saxon triple oath (for example, the thrice 'nay' (no)). Also, they hark back to the time when a mistake in giving the (verbal) oath (called, a miskenning) was -in Anglo-Saxon and early medieval times -fatal. This, on the basis that God was revealing, by means of the mistake, that the person was not being honest (much like the ordeal). In those times, the form of the oath was very rigid. 271 Also, repetition -and the weight to be attached to each person's oath -was an essential part of the process. 272 However, today, this triple repetition as to the truth is tautologous and unnecessary.

(c) Conclusion
It is important, today, that jurors and witnesses understand the nature of the declarations they give. Further, the same should be clear and simple. Also, to avoid problems -and speed up administration -there is no reason why the court clerk (or judge or other designated party) cannot put the declaration to all the jurors, to which each of them replies with a simple 'yes'. Thus, it is asserted that, today, the oaths of jurors and witnesses should be simplified, with the court clerk (or other) saying to the: Juror: 'Do you promise to give an honest and impartial verdict on the evidence?' Answer: 'Yes.' Witness: 'Do you promise to tell the truth ?' Answer: 'Yes.' On saying 'yes', the juror (witness) should then be told that -if they fail to give and honest and impartial verdict (or if they fail to tell the truth) -they may be prosecuted for giving a false verdict as a juror or giving false evidence (as a witness).

(d) Affidavits
Besides the oath of the juror and the oath of the witness, other oaths may be required in legal proceedings (civil and legal). It is asserted these should now become declarations, as opposed to oaths. And, that the form of these oaths should be laid down in rules of court (or a statutory instrument).

THOSE AUTHORISED TO ADMINISTER OATHS
The power of a Commissioner for Oaths to administer oaths (and affirmations) is laid out in legislation. In particular, the Commissioners for Oaths Acts 1889 and 1891 -as well as the Stamp Duty Management Act, s 24. 273 Thus, the 1889 Act, s 1(appointment and powers of commissioners for oaths) provides that: (2) A commissioner for oaths may…in England or elsewhere, administer any oath or take any affidavit for the purposes of any court or matter in England, including any of the ecclesiastical courts or jurisdictions, matters ecclesiastical, matters relating to applications for notarial faculties, and matters relating to the registration of any instrument, whether under an Act of Parliament or otherwise, and take any bail or recognizance in or for the purpose of any civil proceeding in the senior courts… (3) provided that a commissioner for oaths shall not exercise any of the powers given by this section in any proceeding …in which he is interested.
Other extant sections of the 1889 Act deal with the;  power of court officers to administer oaths; 274  taking of oaths out of England;275  appointment of persons to administer oaths for prize proceedings (now, likely, obsolete);  the jurat to state where (and when) the oath is taken;  powers as to oaths and notarial acts abroad;  forgery;  trial of offences;  impounding documents; certain specified and grave offences, when the oaths of the accusers and the defendants were equal in value, recourse was had to the ordeal to obtain the judgment of God as to who was lying.' 273 S 24 (declarations, how to be made). 'Any statutory declaration to be made in pursuance of or for the purposes of this or any other Act for the time being in force relating to duties may be made before any of the Commissioners, or any officer or person authorised by them in that behalf, or before any commissioner for oaths or any justice or notary public in any part of the [UK], or at any place out of the [UK], before any person duly authorised to administer oaths there.' 274 S 2 (powers of certain officers of court, &c. to administer oaths).'Every person who, being an officer of or performing duties in relation to any court, is for the time being so authorised by a judge of the court, or by or in pursuance of any rules or orders regulating the procedure of the court, and every person directed to take an examination in any cause or matter in the Senior Courts shall have authority to administer any oath or take any affidavit required for any purpose connected with his duties.' 275 S 3(taking of oaths out of England). '(1) Any oath or affidavit required for the purpose of any court or matter in England, or for the purpose of the registration of any instrument in any part of the [UK], may be taken or made in any place out of England before any person having authority to administer an oath in that place. (2) In the case of a person having such authority otherwise than by the law of a foreign country, judicial and official notice shall be taken of his seal or signature affixed, impressed, or subscribed to or on any such oath or affidavit.'  definitions. 276 For its part the 1891 Act, s 1, states that affidavits may be made before a commissioner of oaths at any place. Finally, the older Oaths Act 1775 provides for JP's to administer oaths 277 (for public notaries, see 14(b) above). The administration of oaths is also a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 (s 12). However, during a transitional period, the following are licenced to administer the same (including oaths required for foreign legal purposes), every:

CRIME OF PERJURY (a) Development of the Law of Perjury
Turner, the editor of the last edition of Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, in 1966, stated in respect of the history of this crime: In Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, judicial oaths played a very important part, being taken both by jurors and by compurgators. Both these clauses were punishable for any perjuries they uttered. 283 But the functions of the modern witness had not yet been differentiated from those of the juror; and perjury by witnesses was consequently an unknown crime. And when, in the fourteenth century, witnesses began to be brought in to inform the jury, perjury by them was not made a punishable offence. Hence it became a maxim that the law regarded every witness's oath as true. Even the ecclesiastical courts, though treating breaches of faith in general as matters within their jurisdiction, took no notice of the grave breach of faith in giving false witness. But, before the end of the fifteenth century, the Star Chamber sometimes interposed to punish perjuries. And in the sixteenth century, Parliament itself began to interfere with the immunity of witnesses, dealing in 1540 [32 Hen VIII c 9 s 3] 284 with subornation of perjury, and in 1562 with perjury itself [5 Eliz 1 c 9]. 285 But for each of these offences it imposed only a pecuniary penalty, recoverable civilly by a penal action. Finally, however, the Star Chamber, in 1613, declared perjury by a witness to be punishable at common law. 286 The offence thus created was one which could only be committed in a judicial proceeding, 287 and by a witness who gave false evidence on oath. But the law gradually came to assume a far more complicated form. Parliament specified various matters which were not judicial proceedings, yet in which telling a falsehood upon oath was to be a perjury. Again, some classes of witnesses came to be allowed by statute to give evidence in judicial proceedings on mere affirmation, without any oath; and falsehood by them, though no perjury, was made as severely punishable as if it were one. Moreover, the judges proceeded to declare that, in any matter wherein the law required an oath to be taken, the taking it falsely -if it were not judicial, and so not a perjury -would be at least a common law misdemeanour, 288 punishable with fine and imprisonment, though not with the penalties of perjury. 289

(b) Perjury Act 1911
In order to help clarify the law on perjury, the above Act (which is still extant) was passed. It classifies perjury into 3 grades, A, B and C.  Grade A. It covers: (i) falsehood in judicial proceedings; 290 (ii) false oaths in non-judicial proceedings; 291 (iii) false affidavits. 292 It also covers false declarations, where an oath (or affirmation) has been taken with reference to the celebration of a marriage or a birth or death. 293 It does not cover breaches of a juror's oath. Nor promissory oaths. Nor where oaths are included at common law. 294 The punishment for an offence is 7 years imprisonment or a fine (or both);  Grade B. It covers statutory declarations where no oath has been taken. Thus, it is committed when a statement is made in a statutory declaration or some other document which the offender was obliged to make (or some oral declaration or answer he was required to make) by a public general Act of Parliament. 295 The punishment is 2 years imprisonment or a fine (or both);  Grade C. It covers the registration of practitioners. Thus, such an offence is committed when a person makes (orally or in writing) a representation which he knows 'to be false or fraudulent' for the purpose of getting himself registered (or of procuring a certificate of someone's being registered) on the statutory roll of persons legally required to practice a particular calling. 296 Subornation is committed when a person incites a person to commit an offence under the Perjury Act 1911. 297 If successful, the crime is punished the same as the perjury.

(c) Abolishing the Crime of Perjury
The crime of perjury has never been well understood and has had a chequered history.  290 Perjury Act 1911, s 1(1) 'If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury.' Judicial proceeding is defined to cover (s 1(2)) any proceeding 'before any court, tribunal, or person, having by law the power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.' Also, 1(3) 'Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to a person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.' 291 Ibid, s 2 'If any person (1) being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath for any purpose, and being lawfully sworn (otherwise than in a judicial proceeding) wilfully makes a statement which is material for that purpose and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true.' 292 The wilful use of a false affidavit for the purposes of the Bills of Sale 1878, s 2(2). 293 Perjury Act 1911, ss 3(1) & 4(1). 294 Turner, n 97, p 292. 295 Perjury Act 1911, s 5 'If a person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made -(a) in a statutory declaration; or (b) in an abstract, account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry, estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force; or (c) in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force...'. 296 Perjury Act 1911, s 6. 297 Turner, n 97, p 441 'If anyone incites a person to commit either perjury or any other offence against the [Perjury] Act, he commits…a misdemeanour for which he may be fined or imprisoned. But if his incitement prove so successful that the other man does commit the offence, there is then an actual subornation; and for this the suborner may be visited with as severe a punishment as for the perjury, or other offence, itself (section 7).' The Perjury Act 1911, s 7(1) states 'Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a principal offender.' See also Turner, n 97, vol 1, p 302.
 Giving a false verdict (as a juror); 298  Giving false evidence (in any judicial or legal proceedings, including as a witness or in an affidavit);  Making a false Statutory Declaration.
The latter crime should be tailored to each specific statutory context and inserted into the relevant legislation (viz, the Bills of Sale Acts, birth, deaths and marriages legislation etc). However, there should be a residual category of making a false declaration -as in the present Grade B above (which should also apply to statutory instruments) -which residual category should also cover the registration of practitioners (i.e. Grade C). That, is Grades B and C should be conflated.
In conclusion, the Perjury Act should be repealed and the crime become one of making a false declaration.

RECONCILING SCOTS & ENGLISH LAW
Scots law on oaths, in Victorian times, was simpler than English law.  In Scots trials, the oath was usually administered by the judge alone, rather than by a court officer. 299  Also, a witness was not required to hold any holy book (nor kiss it). And, the form of the oath tended to be shorter. 300  Further, in Scotland, there was (generally) more adherence to the notion that Christ had inveighed against the giving of any oath.
England caught up with such practises with the Oaths Act 1909. It permitted a Scots form of oath giving (that is, with the right hand raised and there being no requirement to hold a Bible or to kiss it). Further the Oaths Act 1909 enabled this form of oath to be used even if a person was not a Scot. 301 As it is, further simplifying the law on oaths will help both English and Scots practice. Thus, it is asserted that an Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act should cover Scotland as well as the rest of the UK, if possible. 302  Simplifying the Formalities of Declarations. All declaration should be as simple as possible and in plain English, to assist intelligibility;  Abolition of Perjury. This crime should be abolished. Instead, there should be specific crimes of: (a) giving a false verdict (for a juror); (b) giving false evidence (as a witness or in an affidavit etc); (c) making a false statutory declaration.
An example of how an Act might cover the above is given in the draft Act below and its effects may be noted. This Act seeks to abolish various oaths -such as official and judicial oaths (see the draft Act below, s 1). Thus, it prevents any person or organisation requiring such in the future. Further, even when an oath is permitted by the Act -such as the oath of allegiance proposed for those enlisting in the armed forces -the oath must now be couched in the form of a declaration. It may be noted that the Oaths Act 1978 enabled a person to give an affirmation (declaration) instead of an oath in all instances. However, this Act makes the position mandatoryall oaths must now be converted (transmuted) into declarations. Also, any statutory declaration (or oath required for foreign purposes) must be administered by an authorised person or else it is void. Finally, any oath not authorised by the law is unlawful and cannot be required of a person. 303 This preserves the position enunciated by Coke in his work published in 1641 which was designed to prevent persons being trapped into making oaths for nefarious purposes.

Abolition of Certain Oaths and Affirmations
(1) The following are abolished, any: (a) official oath (also, called an oath of fidelity); (b) judicial oath; (c) oath of homage; (d) oath of fealty; (e) oath of allegiance (save as provided in section 5) (f) oath required at common law. 304 (2) 'Oath' includes any affirmation (or solemn affirmation) in lieu thereof.

Replacing Statutory Oaths with Statutory Declarations
(1) All statutory oaths shall be replaced by statutory declarations.
(2) The form of any statutory declaration may be set out in a SI.
(3) Any statutory declaration (including those in sections 3 to 6) may be amended, or revoked, by a SI.
(4) 'Statutory oath' means any oath required by any general, local or private Act or statutory instrument. 'Statutory declaration' means any declaration required by any general, local or private Act or statutory instrument. 'SI' refers to a statutory instrument.

Coronation Declaration
(1) The sovereign, in the presence of the people assembled at his or her coronation, shall either audibly give (or sign) the declaration in Appendix A. It shall be administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York (or any other bishop of this realm the sovereign shall appoint). 303 Since all oaths at common law are abolished by the Act in the draft Act above and all statutory oaths must be changed into statutory declarations this, effectively, abolishes legal oath giving, save where required for foreign purposes. For example, if (at present) an organisation requires a member of its ruling council to give an oath of fidelity, the proposed Act abolishes such and a person can refuse to give the same. However, suppose the organisation (presently) requires an oath of secrecy ? The proposed Act would require it to be in the form of a declaration, administered by an authorised person, and to be required by statute (which is unlikely). Such does not (and the present Oaths legislation enabling affirmations (declarations) in lieu of affirmations does not) impede a person agreeing to maintain secrecy as a matter of contract; or where legislation requires (e.g. under the Official Secrets Act). It is possible that this proposed Act might have to make an exception to any declaration of secrecy given by a common councilman of the City of London Corporation (see n 250) since it is possible that the common law recognised such an oath, the Corporation being a medieval institution (see Liber Albus, n 70, pp 36-7 for the oath as well as Pulling, n 125, pp 40-1).
(3) Extension to Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Her Majesty may, by a SI, direct that any provisions of this section shall extend to the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands, with such adaptations or modifications as may be specified.

Unlawful Declarations and Oaths
(1) It is unlawful for a person, other than a person authorised pursuant to s 7(1), to administer a statutory declaration (or an oath) and any declaration (or oath) so administered is void.
(2) It is unlawful for a person to require another to give an oath unless legislation requires the same 307 and any oath so administered is void.

Transitional Period
(1) For a transitional period specified in an SI, an oath may be used in the case of s 2(1) and 6(2). However, such shall not apply to the other sections of this Act which shall come into immediate effect.

Repeals
(1) The legislation referred to in Appendix E is repealed.
(2) This Act shall apply to England