The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-22 00:00:00

P UNJA.UB.

The Viceroy, accompanied by the Lieutenant-Governor
of the Punjaub and about 200 of the chief civil and military
residents and others, opened a section of this company's
railway from Lahore towards Mooltan on the 19th of Octo-
ber. His Excellency adverted to the great advantage of rail-
way communioation, and expressed his approval of the
arrangements for opening that portion of the line.

SALE OF THE EASBY ABBEY WINES.—This email
but choice collection of wines was brought to the
hammer in London, on Friday last, by Messrs. Fuller and
Horsey, and attracted a large attendance of connoisseurs.
The prices realised indicate the character of the winos :
Port, vintage 1820, £l6 per dozen ; vintage 1827, £l5 5s
per dozen; vintage 1827, £l2 to £l3; vintage 1834, £l0;
vintage 1834, £6 13s to £7 78 ; vintage 1840, £5 ; vintage
1847, £4 4s ; vintage 1851, £3 14s ; East India Madeira,
£6 68 ; Claret £5 6s to £6 178 ; very old Sherry, £3 16s ;
Domecqs Sherry, £3 14s to £4.

BREAKFAST BEVERAGE.—Homooopathic practitioners,
and the medical profession generally, recommend cocoa
as being the most healthful of all beverages. When the doc-
trine of homoeopathy was first introduced into this country,
there were to be obt fined no preparations of cocoa either at,
tractive to the taste or acceptable to the stomach ; the nut
was either supplied in the crude state, or so unskilfully
manufactured as to obtain little notice. J. Epps, of London,
Homceopathic Chemist, was induced in the year 1839 to turn
his attention to this subject, and at length succeeded, with
the assistance of elaborate machinery, in being the first
to produce an article pure in its composition and so refined
by the perfect trituration it receives in the process it passes
through, as to be most acceptable to the delicate stomach.
For general use Epps's Cocoa is distinguished as an invigo-
rating, grateful breakfast beverage, possessing a most deli-
cious aroma. Dr. Hassall, in his work, "Food and its
Adulterations," says —" Cocoa contains a great variety of im-
portant nutritive principles—every ingredient necessary to
the growth and sustenance of the body." Again: "As a
nutritive, cocoa stands very much higher than either coffee
or tea." Directions—Two teaspoonfuls of the powder in a
breakfast cup, filled up with boiling water or milk. Secured
in tin-Lined ilb., Ob., and 11b. labelled packets, and old by
grocers, ccontecti9nera, and gherniato.—[ADTT.J

The Promotion of Social Science and the
Amendment of the Law.

Tho second meeting of the Department of Jurisprudence
and Amendment of the Law was held last night, when a
paper was road by Alfred Waddilove, D.C.L., on "The
Expediency of Abolishing the Rules of Evidence which
Exclude the Testimony of the Parties in certain Civil Suits
and of Defendants in Criminal Trials." In consequence of
an engagement of Fitzroy Kelly, Q,C., Mr Daniell, Q C.,
took the chair.

The minutes of the last meeting having been read,
Dr. WADDILOVE proceeded with his paper. Before pro-
ceeding he wished to observe that it had been already read
in the Department of Jurisprudence cf the Social Science
meeting held lately at York, and was now the same, except
a few material alterations he had made in it. According to
the excellent treatise of Mr Pitt Taylor on evidence, seven
parties were now competent to give evidence in suits in
courts of law,but he would reduce that number to four. Those
should be—first, that all parties in suit, civil or criminal,
should be permitted to ten 'er their own evidence ; secondly,
that a husband should be competent to give evidence against
his wife and a wife against her husband ; thirdly, that all
parties should be competent to give evidence to relieve them-
selves from any charge preferred against them; and fourthly,
that judges should have the power of summoning any per
son before them for the purpose of giving evidence in every
case. Down to the year 1833 the evidence given in courts
of justice was left entirely to the dicta of judges, which
were often very unsatisfactory ; and in that year Lord
Brougham brought in a bill which altered that state of
things. Several changes had been made since that time, but
still the law was anything but what it should be. He pro-
posed, therefore, in the first instance, that all parties to a
suit, civil or criminal, should be competent to give evi-
dence. At present petitioners in the Divorce Court were
examined, and he did not see why the principle should net
be extended still further. That was not so in an actian for
breach of promise of marriage, although it was admissible
for a breach of contract, Now surely there was an anomaly
in that, because a breach of promise of marriage was evi-
dently a breach of contract, and the same evidence was ap-
plicable to both. With respect to the power he proposed to
give judges to summon any witnesses they pleased before
them, he thought it would be a most important alteration in
the present law. At present in the Divorce and Ecclesias.
tical Courts, cases were adjourned for the production of
further evidence, though he admitted that such would be
a difficult proceeding in cases where juries were concerned,
because of the impossibility of getting the same jury again.
Then again, according to the present law, a prisoner
once given in charge to a jury they could not separate
without either convicting or acquitting him, and that
no doubt created a great difficulty,, but it could be sur-
mounted, and other anomalies removed from their pre-
sent system, which did great injustice and produced serious
inconvenience.

Mr EDGAR thought the society were deeply indebted to
Dr Waddilove for the able paper he had just read, but
there were many points in it to which he objected. He did
not agree with him that power should be given to a judge to
postpone a case to obtain further evidence, because he be-
lieved it would produce great mischief and injustice. With
respect to plaintiffs being allowed to give evidence in civil
cases, he saw nothing in it injurious to society, but he had
serious doubts whether they would ever be able to carry a
bill to enable a prisoner charged with felony to give evidence
on his own behalf. That was attended with many serious
difficulties, and for his own part he could not see his way
to their removal.

Mr. FREDERICK HILL believed that public opinion was
in favour of a prisoner being allowed to give evidence in his
own behalf, but against him being compelled to do so.
Whether they looked to the innocent or guilty, or the pre-
servation of society, he saw no objection whatever to such
a course being pursued. If a man were charged with an
offence, surely it would be absurd to say to him that he could
not be heard in his own defence. He was, therefore, pre-
pared to agree with Dr. Waddilove, and believed that some
change was absolutely necessary. Ho was also prepared to
allow husband and wife to give evidence in criminal matters
but he would not wake it compellable, unless in cases where
a charge of adultery was made by one against the other
and then for the sake of eliciting the truth and doing
justice, ho was prepared to insist on its being given.

Mr ALLEN thought the advantages of allowing a prisoner
to state his own case were rather overrated. For his own
part he did not believe his mouth was shut, because when
before the magistrate he was permitted to say whatever he
pleased and that was given in evidence upon his trial. Did
any one believe the truth would be better elicited by allow-
ing prisoners to make statements on oath ? He did not ;
and was therefore against the proposition put forward to
allow prisoners to be examined in their own behalf.
Mr HASTINGS observed that a statement before a magis-
trate was made on the spur of the moment, and without the
advice of counsel. It might also happen that between the
time he:was committed and the trial further evidence might
be produced, to which he should have the opportunity of
replying. That applied especially to cases which often oc-
curred, of statements given by policemen as to alleged con-
versation with a prisoner previous to his trial. Cases of
that kind often occurred, and it was unjust to prevent a
prisoner from giving them, if he could, a denial upon oath.
Mr PALMER was in favour to a certain degree of the
propositions put forward, except that which allowed a pri-
soner to give evidence in his own case. He believed it was
introducing a principle of great danger, and especially in-
jurious to an innocent man.

Dr SMITH was in favour of allowing a prisoner to be
examined, in order to give an explanation of the charge
brought against him.
Mr DILLON reminded them that it was a maxim of
British law that no man was guilty until found so, and that
was directly opposed to allowing a prisoner to be sworn and
give evidence in his own case.

Mr NEWMARCH supported the principle put forward by
Dr Waddilove, and hoped another year would not pass be-
fore some radical changes were effected,

•
After a few words from Mr ELLIOTT and Mr SHEAN,
Mr TEULON moved that the paper read be referred to the
standing committee of the department, with liberty to deal
with it as they thought proper, and to report thereon,
The motion being seconded,
Dr WADDILOVE thought the question was one worthy of
their consideration, and believing a further discussion neces-
sary, he should move that the debate be adjoerned.
After some discussion the amendment was withdrawn,
and the original resolution passed.
Tho proceedings then terminated.