in Law, is defined by Sir Edward Coke to be a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears wilfully, absolutely, and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question. In ancient times it was in some places punished with death; in others it made the false swearing liable to the punishment due to the crime he had charged the innocent person with; in others a pecuniary mulct was imposed. But though it escaped human, yet it was thought, amongst the ancients in general, that the divine vengeance would most certainly overtake it; and there are many severe inflictions from the hand of God upon record, as monuments of the abhorrence in which this atrocious crime is held by the Deity. The souls of the deceased were supposed to be employed in punishing perfidious persons. Even the inanimate creation was thought to take revenge for this crime. The Greeks supposed that no person could swear falsely by Styx without some remarkable punishment; and that no person guilty of perjury could enter the cave of Palamedes at Corinth without being made a memorable example of divine justice. In Sicily, at the temple of the Palici, there were fountains called Deli, from which issued boiling water, with flames and balls of fire; and we are told that if any person swore falsely near them, he was instantly struck dumb, blind, lame, or dead, or was swallowed up by the waters. But although perjury was thus held in general abhorrence, notwithstanding the credit which was given to such accounts of divine inflictions, it was so much practised by the Greeks, that Graeca fides became a proverb. Lovers perjuries, however, were supposed to pass unnoticed, or to be very slightly punished with blackness of the nails, a decayed tooth, or some small diminution of beauty.

The ancient philosophers, however, were so afraid of perjury, that even an oath before a judge was never admitted but for want of other proof. Plato's precept was, "Not to administer an oath wantonly, but on deep grounds, and with the strictest caution." Ulpian gives his his opinion thus: "Some are forward to take oaths from a contempt of religion; others, from an extraordinary awe of the Divine Majesty, carry their fear to an unreasonable superstition; so make an equitable decision of a judge necessary." "No man will perjure himself (says Aristotle) who apprehends vengeance from Heaven and disgrace among men." Clinius was so very scrupulous, that rather than take an oath (though lawfully), he suffered the loss of three talents. Perjury, in the time of Philo Judeus, was abominated and capitally punished among the Jews; though since they have much degenerated, having been poisoned with the books of the Talmud, which says, "He who breaks his promissory oath, or any vows he enters into by the year, if he has a mind that they should be ineffectual and invalid, let him rise the last day of the year, and say, Whatever promises, oaths, and vows I may think fit to make in the year following, let them be null, void, and of no effect." Tract. iii. part 3. of the Talmud, in the treatise Nedharim, ch. 4. And the modern Jews use the same artifice, thinking they may then lawfully deceive the Christians. See Hieron. ex DiSic Talmud, c. 3. and Magister Johannes de Concord. Legum, tit. iv. c. 7.

In our law, no notice is taken 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 affects all other oaths unnecessary at least, and therefore will not punish the breach of them. For which reason it is much to be questioned, how far any magistrate is justifiable in taking a voluntary affidavit in any extrajudicial matter, as is now too frequent upon every petty occasion; since it is more than possible that, by such idle oaths, a man may frequently, in foro conscientiae, incur the guilt, and at the same time evade the temporal penalties of perjury. The perjury must also be corrupt (that is, committed malo animo), wilful, positive, and absolute; not upon surmise, 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 circumstances, to which no regard is paid, it is no more penal than in the voluntary extrajudicial oaths before mentioned. Subornation of perjury is the offence of procuring another to take such a false oath as constitutes perjury in the principal. The punishment of perjury and subornation, at common law, has been various. It was anciently death; afterwards banishment, or cutting out the tongue; then forfeiture of goods; and now it is fine and imprisonment, and never more to be capable of bearing testimony. But the statute 5 Eliz. c. 9. (if the offender be prosecuted thereon) inflicts the penalty of perpetual infamy, and a fine of 40l. on the suborner; and in default of payment, imprisonment for six months, and to stand with both ears nailed to the pillory. Perjury itself is thereby punished with six months imprisonment, perpetual infamy, and a fine of 20l. or to have both ears nailed to the pillory. But the prosecution is usually carried on for the offence at common law; especially as to the penalties before inflicted, the statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25. supersedes a power for the court to order the offender to be sent to the house of correction for a term not exceeding seven years or to be transported for the same period; and makes it felony, without benefit of clergy, to return or escape within the time. It has sometimes been wished, that perjury, at least upon capital accusations, whereby another's life has been or might have been destroyed, was also rendered capital, upon a principle of retaliation; as it was universally by the laws of France. And certainly the odiousness of the crime pleads strongly in behalf of the French law. But it is to be considered, that they admitted witnesses to be heard only on the side of the prosecution, and used the rack to extort a confession from the accused. In such a condition, therefore, it was necessary to throw the dread of capital punishment into the other scale, in order to keep in awe the witnesses for the crown; on whom alone the prisoner's fate depended: so naturally does one cruel law beget another. But corporal and pecuniary punishments, exile, and perpetual infamy, are more suited to the genius of the English law; where the fact is openly discussed between witnesses on both sides, and the evidence for the crown may be contradicted and disproved by those of the prisoner. Where indeed the death of an innocent person has actually been the consequence of such wilful perjury, it falls within the guilt of deliberate murder, and deserves an equal punishment; which our ancient law in fact inflicted. But the mere attempt to destroy life by other means not being capital, there is no reason that an attempt by perjury should; much less that this crime should, in all judicial cases, be punished with death. For to multiply capital punishments lessens their effect, when applied to crimes of the deepest dye; and, detestable as perjury is, it is not by any means to be compared with some other offences, for which only death can be inflicted; and therefore it seems already (except perhaps in the instance of deliberate murder by perjury) very properly punished by our present law; which has adopted the opinion of Cicero, derived from the law of the twelve tables, Perjurii pena divina, exitium; humana, dedecus. See OATH.