The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-29 00:00:00

NAL CASES.

Lord BROUGHAM introduced a bill for the purpose of
enabling defendants to be examined in certain cases in cri-
minal prosecutions. Last year he introduced a bill on this
subject, the object of which was to enable all defendants in
criminal cases to enjoy the same privilege as defendants in
civil actions, viz., that of being examined. The examina-
tion was to be voluntary, and not compulsory. He with-
drew that bill, however, in deference to the objections of
bis noble and learned friends, the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Chelmsford, and Lord Cranwerth. In doing so he confessed
he yielded to their reluctance rather than to their reasons ;
and he still retained his own opinion of the value of the bill
of last year. He changed it, however, materially, so as to
meet the objectionsthen urged. Ho proposed by the present
bill to confine the right of defendants to be examined as
witnesses in their own behalf to cases of misdemeanour
only. He did not propose to extend it to cases of felony. He
also restricted it to those cases in which the prosecuting
party was himself examined, in which case he proposed that
the defendant should be examined. A recent trial (the
noble lord referred to the Hatch case) had very much in-
creased the desire to have some such bill as that which he
proposed last year passing into a law. Verdicts were found
for the prosecuting parties in that case, although they had
been found guilty as defendants. He believed that such an
examination as he proposed was the best defence of inno-
cence, and therefore he moved that the bill be read a first
time.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the formor bill
would have completely subverted the ordinary administra-
tion of justice in cases of high treason, felony, and misde-
meanour ; and it would have rendered it necessary for every
accused person either to submit to be examined or admit
his guilt. The modified proposal now made was w rthy of
consideration, but it would require to be carefully exa-
mined. Some misdemeanours were as grave as felony, and
were punishable with transportation ; but in the lighter
cases of mi demeanour, as assaults and libels, the principle
might admit of application. Still he had a strong objection
to violating the established principle of the law that no
man should be his own accuser, which he might be if he
were subject to be examined.

Lord BROUGHAM said that the way in which French
criminal jurisprudence was conducted was sufficient to raise
the strongest objection to the cross-examination of accused
parties. That system was more objectionable, from being
conducted by the judge. Anything more preposterous,
cruel, or inhuman, could not be conceived. But it was not
surprising that it should prevail in a country wheee the con-
nexion of a despot and a mob was considerA the perfection
of government, and what was more, of free government. It
would be impossible for such a principle ever to be admitted
here, unless this country should come to the conclusion that
the power of a single individual and a mob was the most
eligible form of government.
The bill wan then read a first time.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE laid on the table a bill for