The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-19 00:00:00

the same thing as when a case was argued by parties
having adverse interests. (Hear, hear.)
The subject then dropped.
EAST INDIA COMPANY'S LOAN BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
COUNTY COUR

Lord BROUGHAM, in moving for certain returns
relating to county courts, said that during the first ten
years after those tribunals had been established the num-
ber of suite brought before them was no less than
4,600,000 ; the sums claimed amounted to fourteen mil-
lions and a half ; the sums recovered to 7,300,0001., and
the sums paid into court to another miLion. The busi-
ness was rapidly on the increase; the number of plaints
during the year 1857 having exceeded 700,000, and the
total amount sued for since the establishment of the
q) stem being no less than sixteen millions sterling. The
benefit which had accrued to the country from the
courts could not be measured even by these figures ;
for the simple fact that there was in existence such a
jurisdiction, so efficiently exercised, no doubt rendered
an immense amount of litigation unnecessary. The
c linty courts had tended greatly to the comfort and
peace of the commtmity, for he could imagine nothing
more calculated to produce wide-spread and deep-seated
discontent than the manner in which justice used in
former times to be practically denied. (Hear.) The
relief given was represented by the number of suits
brought, for coming to Westminster-hall was wildly out
of the question. The great objection originally made to
the act to which he had the good fortune to obtain their
lordships' concurrence in 1851—au act which he had no ,
hesitation in saying had wrought the most beneficial
change which had been effected in our law procedure in
nit darn titne—was to the provision for the examination
of the parties, and which should in justice be w,cribed to
the late Lord Denman, for he looked upon his bill as a
mere corollary to the bill of Lord Denman of 1842-3.
The great objection made to the act of 1551 war; that if
they allowed the parties to be exrmined they would have
endless perjury. But what had been the result ? That
perjury had diminished instead of increased. The num
bee of commitments in the two years before the act
was brought into opera ion was 136, and in the two
years after they were 107. And this was not owing to
any decrease iu offences generally, for the general com-
mitments increased in the same period from 27,000 to
to 23,000. No e, he proposed to extend a little further
the right to examine the parties. Atpresent it wasconfined
to civil actions ; be proposed to extend it to criminal
cases. He did not contend that the propriety of this
was as clear as the proposition which was made in 1851,
but he considered that upon the whole it was demon-
strably clear that this extension of the right should take
place. When the bill of 1851 was sent to the other
house, the then Recorder of London, Mr. Stuart
Wortley, said great hardship was often inflicted, and in-
justice done by there being no power to examine pri-
soners or defendants in criminal cases, and that there
were many cases in which the testimony of the parties
would turn the balance either way. At present the state-
ment ofa prisoner or a defendant waslittle heeded, because
it was not given on oath, and because it could not be
tested by cross-examination. What he proposed was, that
a prisoner cr a defendant might, if he chose, offer him-
self for examination, and have a right to be ex-
amined upon oath, subject to the cross-examination of
the prosecuting counsel. As the law had stood since
1851, in any case of foul conspiracy, scandalous fraud, or
fearful violence even, provided the case were brought into
court ueder the form of an action, instead of by indict-
ment, the defendant might be examined just as much as
the plain•iff. But it was not confined to that. Bankrupts
and insolvents were examined on oath, and were not al-
lowed to refuse to answer en the ground that the answer
might criminate themselves. He was aware that a clever
malefactor would have an advantage over a simple-
minded prosecutor, but he was not afraid that injustice
would be done thereby. Many magistrates and judges,
he thought, went out of their way by warning prisoners
against answering questions or making statements. He
had seen repeated instances of magistrates not only tell-
ing prisoners that what they said might be used in evi
dence against them—to which there could be no objeetion
—but going further, and advising them to reserve their
defence. Though no one would go further than he did in
disapproval of the French system in putting a prisoner to
examination, and comparing what he had said before the
juge d'instruction with what he said in a higher court,
yet he thought they ought not to throw an impediment
in the way of a prisoner making his statement to the
court. Referring to the county courts, he regretted
that though Parliament had liberally given the judges
1,5001. a year, the late Government had reduced most
of them to 1,200 a year.
Lord CRANWQRTH said when his noble friend
talked of the liberality of Parliament he should remem-
ber that the House of Commons had refused to give the
county court judges more than 1,2001. a year. The
motion of which his noble and learned friend had given
notice was for the production of certain returns relative
to county courts, and it was hardly to be expected that
on that motion he would have gone into the important
question as to whether or not criminals should be ex-
amined vita -cove. He agreed that we were somewhat
prudish on that subject, and that we often shut out
truth when, by a relaxation of the rule, it might be got
at. With regard to the magistrates cautioning prisoners,
his noble and learned friend should recollect that by act
of Parliament they were bound to tell prisoners that
what they said would be used against them. Though a
prisoner was not examined on oath, yet if he told a co-
herent and probable story, ho had observed that it had
always great weight with a jury.
The motion was then put cud agreed to.
Lord BROUGHAM then laid on the tables bill to
enable prisoners and defendants in criminal cases to be
examined on oath, and the bill was real a first time.