The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-02 00:00:00

therefore—the AUTOCRAT forwards to the Sublime
Porte, through his Envoy Extraordinary, a con-
vention couched in the form of an ultimatum.
He receives on the 12th ultimo a positive rejec-
tion of this ultimatum by the Divan —a rejection,
howbeit, conveyed in a note expressive of the
utmost goodwill towards Russia—assuring her, at
the same time, in terms the most clear and con-
ciliatory, that henceforth all privileges hitherto
enjoyed by them should continue to be secured to
the Greek Christians owning allegiance to the
Sultan ABD-m-MEDirin. To this resolute and
honourable document Prince MENSCHIKOFF, on
the part of his Imperial Master, answered the
Divan in a note, dated the 15th ultimo, announc-
ing to it the rupture of diplomatic negotiations
between the Russian and Turkish Governments.
Nevertheless, while announcing his speedy depar-
ture from Constantinople, the Ambassador from the
Courtof St. Petersburgh recommended the Sublime
Porte to profit by the brief interval that would
intervene, so as to modify its recent determina-
tion. In this very proposal it is obvious that
there was weakness, that there was a " letting
down," that there was a readiness to concede,
that there was a disposition to temporise. What
was the rejoinder of the Divan ? It came as early
as the 17th ultimo. It was a reply worthy of a
Cabinet inspired by the policy of RESCHID PACHA.
It expressed the regret of his Majesty the SULTAN
at the announced cessation of relations ; but, in
doing so it affirmed his inflexible determination
not to accede to the proposed convention ! There-
upon came that elaborate document forwarded on
the 18th ultimo to the Sublime Porte, by Prince
MENSCHIKOFF, to which we have already more
than once made especial reference. It was after
this that the Russian Ambassador hastily quitted
Constantinople, to be followed by the rest of the
legation forthwith to St. Petersburgh. Throughout
all this it is manifest that, for once, the Czar
NICHOLAS has thrown aside all considerations of
dignity and prudence, and has momentarily de-
generated into the mere blusterer. If his Russian
MAJESTY counted upon frightening the Divan
into a relinqishment of the desired powers of the
Protectorate, he has deceived himself most
egregiously. He has found his ambition effectually
foiled by the resolute patriotism of the Turkish Go-
vernment. He has recovered to a knowledge of his
diplomatic defeat at Constantinople, to find the
Divan prepared to summon to its aid, at the first
emergency, the united forces of France and
England. The lawless aggression which he
fancied, doubtless, might be carried out quietly
enough within the shadow of the Council-
Chambers of Constantinople, has suddenly ex-
panded into a difficulty of vast and momentous
importance. He finds himself all at once placed
between the horns of a rather formidable
dilemma—compelled either to withdraw those
pretensions which he has recently advanced
with so much arrogance, and thereby to be de-
graded in the eyes of the Oriental population, or
to enforce his demands by a declaration of war,
in which he would have to fight alone against the
banded forces of the chief Powers of Christendom.
What says the CZAR in this dilemma ? Western
Europe awaits, with solicitude, of course, but
without trepidation, the announcement of the re-
solution arrived at in this political quandary—or,
as Brother Jonathan might term it, this " tarna-
tion fix"—by the despotic Government of St.
Petersburgh.

On Monday we alluded to the changes z•ecom-
mended by the Common Law Commissioners, the
effect whereof will be to remove almost all the
existing restrictions as to witnesses, and to render
admissible the testimony of every person who can
afford any information or throw additional light
on the subject under investigation at the moment.
The ()illy remaining bar will be that imposed by
domestic or professional confidence—the wife or
lawyer not being bound to betray the secrets con-
fided to their charge, in consequence of the pecu-
liar relationship existing between the parties.
These privileges will, we should hope, be univer-
sally approved of ; and we may therefore con-
gratulate the country on the speedy prospect of
having nothing further to desire on this very
important point, or so far as the admissibility of
oral testimony is concerned.
But there are many other points connected ,
with the Law of Evidence to which the Commis-
sioners directed their attention, and which they
have discussed with great ability—noticing
arguments for and against the different alterations
that have from time to time been suggested, and
finally deciding in favour of that for which the
most valid and substantial reasons could be
adduced.

One of the most striking topics, on which the
greatest diversity of opinion has existed among
learned and experienced men, relates to the sanc-
tion or obligation by which the actual truth may
be elicited, and every possible protection and bar-
rier obtained against deceit or mendacity to pre-
vent a person from " bearing false witness
against his neighbour," and thus committing a
crime, not only of the most serious consequence
to society, but in express violation of one of the
direct commandments of the DEITY. Many intel-
ligent persons, whose opinions are entitled

to the greatest weight, have asserted that
nothing but a solemn appeal to the DEITY
will afford the requisite amount of security
against untrue or inaccurate testimony, while
others, of equal acuteness and intelligence, insist
that nothing is gained by the frequent repetition
of judicial oaths, but that, on the contrary, the
great " familiarity" with the process " breeds
contempt," so that the sacred obligation is habitu-
ally despised, and recklessly violated.
There is, indeed, much to be said on both sides
of the question, and it requires a nice discrimina-
tion to decide wisely and judiciously as to the
most suitable course to be pursued.
There is no doubt that the multiplicity of oaths,
as well as the rigid and undeviating exclusion of
the testimony of those who believed that they
were bound by the precept " swear not at all,"
were productive of very injurious consequences to
society and individuals. The former led to a
carelessness and indifference as to the solemn obli-
gation, and, in fact, operated as a direct incentive
to perjury. The latter frequently led, not merely

to the rejection of trustworthy evidence, and the
consequent failure or mal-administration of justice,
but also to the punishment—we might almost say
the "persecution"—of men of upright and moral
characters, because they refused to do that which
they honestly and conscientiously deemed to be
wrong, and in direct opposition to the precepts of
the SAVIOUR.

In both respects remedial measures were intro-
duced, which, although not altogether adequate to
the exigencies of the case, were yet important
steps in the right direction. As we have recently
stated " Custom-house oaths" and fiscal swearing
of every description we're virtually abolished—
written declarations taken and subscribed before
a magistrate, and which, If wilfully and delibe-
rately untrue, subjected the offender to stringent
penalties, were substituted in ,many other cases.
Not only were the Test and ColKporation Acts re-
pealed, but the universities and other corporate
bodies were authorised and required to accept de-
clarations in lieu of oaths. Affidavits were no
longer to be required from churcLtwardens or
persons acting in the execution of turnpike
trusts. Powers of attorney, for the transfer or re-
ceiving the dividends of stock, were therreeforward
to be verified by declaration in place of a_ifidavit ;
and the same rule was established in all relating
to the taking out of patents, and dealing with
pawnbrokers. Magistrates were also prohibited
from taking voluntary oaths in matters not re-
lating to judicial inquiries, so that we had no
longer a
quack doctor calling on GOD to witness
that the goods in
the efficiency of his medicines, tor the multitude of
almost miraculous cures, nor traders making oaths
a n d
efthe best which e theys gdueayallitt were
freeo from
be
adulteration,
that could obtained.
Complete revolution was effected in
the year 1835,
introduced, which them provisions were
oaths. The vrillec.system of voluntary and trifling
HURST, in his admirable speech
to by Lord LYND-
ing—" Nec Delis interesitsPeech .on. Tuesday even-
dus"—was then reengnialalisi, vindice no-
It is only to be regretted that rail
It
for the first time.
a VOL 9,plete remedy was