近期的立法會新科議員宣誓弄得香港滿城風雨，各路人馬劍拔弩張，殺氣騰騰。為免心煩氣燥，暫且放下惱人的時事新聞，改到圖書館尋書香去。順手借閱了由張連興撰寫的《香港二十八總督》，這算是一本內地出版的香港本地史著作。張先生長期在人民日報不同部門工作，並多年專門負責港澳台宣傳報道。
據我的認知，在十九世紀時，香港總督要在立法會會議上舉行就職典禮，由首席按察司(香港最高法院首席法官)監誓，分別宣讀效忠宣誓 (Oath of Allegiance) 和受任宣誓 (Oath of Office) 兩項誓辭。書中記述了十九世紀兩位港督就職時的宣誓風波，倒也有趣，值得和大家分享。
第一位是第六任港督麥當奴 (Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell)，他在1866年3月11日到香港，3月12日在立法局會議中宣誓，但負責監誓的署理首席按察司巴爾(Henry John Ball) 遲遲未有出現，在海外殖民地擔任總督多年的麥當奴，等得不耐煩，在無人監誓的情況下，自行宣誓就任港督，當時也無人質疑他的合法性。
張連興的記述未有交代麥當奴的宣誓風波如何發展，這引起了我的好奇，在歷史旨在求真的信念驅使下，我在網上查閱了立法局1866年3月12日的會議紀錄，會議紀錄沒有記載港督麥當奴的受任宣誓(Oath of Office)由何人監誓，也沒有紀錄港督麥當奴曾同時作出效忠宣誓 (Oath of Allegiance) 。換言之，港督麥當奴的宣誓不是只有張連興所述的一個問題，而是有兩個問題—-第一是沒有人監誓，第二是讀漏了效忠宣誓誓辭，理論上麥當奴未有完成就職宣誓。
我接著再查閱立法局1866年3月29日的會議紀錄，港督麥當奴在會議中承認未有在3月12日作效忠宣誓，他要求在席的署理首席首席按察司巴爾即時為他監誓，他宣讀了效忠宣誓(Oath of Allegiance) 誓辭，也順道把受任宣誓 (Oath of Office) 誓辭再讀一次，如此這般，港督麥當奴的就職宣誓才算正式完成。立法局1866年3月29日的會議紀錄記載如下：
With reference to the Minutes of the last Meeting just read, His Excellency observes that, although nothing had invalidated his acts as Governor since his assumption of the charge of the Government, as the authority vested in him is solely derived from Her Majesty’s Commission, yet, as he had not taken one of the two Oaths enjoined by The Queen’s Instructions, namely, that which is laid down in the Imperial Act, 21 and 22 Victoria, Chapter 48, His Excellency proposes therefore to take the Oath now.
Whereupon, the Oath prescribed by the said Act is administered to His Excellency by the Honorable the Acting Chief Justice, who, by His Excellency’s desire, administers to him also the usual Oath of Office, which His Excellency considered had been irregularly administered at the last Meeting.
第二位釀宣誓風波的港督是堅尼地 (Sir Arthur Edward Kennedy)。麥當奴在1872年4月11日離任港督，然後是堅尼地繼任，他於1872年4月16日在立法局會議中宣誓也有風波，負責監誓的同樣是署理首席按察司巴爾。
書中記述堅尼地宣誓時，覺得效忠宣誓誓辭的字眼似乎有點與慣用的不同，於是「立即停下來詢問，這誓辭是否有錯誤…… 司儀回答說，這是代理大法官所擬定的，意思是說這不會有錯，堅尼地聽後接著念下去…… 十多日之後，總督忽然召開立法局會議 ，堅尼地當場向全體議員宣佈，現已證實前次宣讀的誓辭的確是錯誤了……」堅尼地決定在署理首席按察司巴爾的監誓下，重新作效忠宣誓。立法局1872年4月29日的會議紀錄記載如下：
His Excellency opens the proceedings by stating that he has convened the Council more especially for the purpose of rectifying a mistake which had occurred at the last Meeting on his being sworn into Office, in that, whilst the Royal Instructions issued to him on the 13th of February, 1872, directed that he should take the Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Imperial Act 31 and 32 Victoria, Chapter 72, he had taken the Oath laid down in the Imperial Act 21 and 22 Victoria, Chapter 48, as ordered in the Royal Instructions to his Predecessor, of the 14th October, 1865.
His Excellency then requests the Honorable the Acting Chief Justice to administer to him the Oath of Allegiance required by his Instructions, and such Oath is administered to His Excellency accordingly.
讀歷史可以鑑古知今，十九世紀兩位港督的宣誓風波說明了兩點：
第一，公職人員的就職宣誓是莊嚴的事，他們需要按指定格式宣讀誓辭，不能有錯；
第二，首次宣誓有錯誤時，可以有再次宣誓的機會。
後記
翻閱了多份百多年前的立法局會議紀錄，開會時間由半小時至一個半小時不等，遠少於現在的超長時間會議。當然，讀史書不要盡信，對存疑的事要做點考證查核，才能符合學歷史旨在求真之道。各位有興趣的話，也可以看看有關宣誓風波的立法局會議紀錄：
http://www.legco.gov.hk/1866/h18660312.pdf
http://www.legco.gov.hk/1866/h18660329.pdf