right hand upon the book itself (_il voilt deponer
sa maine dexter sur le liver mesme_). Colt _v._ Dutton, 2 Siderfin's _R._
6.

This case shows that the usual practice at the time it was decided was, not
to take the book in the hand, but to lay the hand upon it. Now, if a person
laid his hand upon a book, which rested on anything else, he most probably
would lay his fingers upon it, and, if he afterwards kissed it, would raise
it with his fingers at the top, and his thumb under the book; and possibly
this may account for the practice I mentioned of the Welsh witnesses,
which, like many other usages, may have been once universally prevalent,
but now have generally ceased.

With regard to kissing the book, so far from assuming that it was
essential, I stated that "in none of these instances does kissing the book
appear to be essential." Indeed, as, "upon the principles of the common
law, there is no particular form essential to an oath to be taken by a
witness; but as the purpose of it is to bind his conscience, every man of
every religion should be bound by that form which he himself thinks will
bind his own conscience most" (per Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice, Atcheson
_v._ Everitt, Cowper's _R._ 389.), the form of the oath will vary according
to the particular opinion of the witness.

Lord Mansfield, in the case just mentioned, referred to the case in
Siderfin, and stated that "the Christian oath was settled in very ancient
times;" and it may, perhaps, be inferred that he meant that it was so
settled in the form there mentioned; but, as he inaccurately translates the
words I have given thus, "If I were sworn, _I would kiss the book_," it may
be doubtful whether he did not consider kissing the book as a part of the
form of the oath so settled.

I cannot assent to the opinion of Paley, that the term _corporal_, as
applied to oath, was derived from the corporale--the square piece of linen
on which the chalice and host were placed. The term doubtless was adopted,
in order to distinguish some oaths from others; and it would be very
strange if it had become the invariable practice to apply it to all that
large class of oaths, in every civil and criminal tribunal, to which it did
not apply; and when it is remembered that in indictments (which have ever
been construed with the strictest regard to the truth of the statements
contained in them) this term has always been used where the book has been
touched, and where the use