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

the eame thing as when a case war argued by partiee
having adverse interests. (Rear, hear,)

The subject then dropped.
EAST INDIA COMPANY'S LOAN BILL
'I hts bill passed through committee.
COUNTY COURTS.

Lord BROUGHAM, in moving for certain returns
relating to county courts, said that during the fir-t ten
years after those tribunal - had been estaoli-ied the num-
ber of suits brought before them was no lees than
4,660,000 ; the saws claimed amounted to fon. teen mil-
lions and a half ; the sums recovered to 7,300,0001., and
the sums paid into court to another million. The busi-
ness was rapidly on the increase ;' the number of plainis
during the year 1857 having exceeded 700,000, and the
total amount sued for since the establishment of the
system 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 dimple fact that there was in existence such a
jurisdiction, so efficiently exercised, no doubt rendered
an im Oinse amount of litigation unnecessary. The
c unty ourts hid tended greatly to the comfort and
peace o the community, for he could imagine nothing
more c culated to produce wide-spread an-I deep-seated
discont nt than the manntr in which justice u-ed in
former imes to be pracdca(Fla'.)&t
y denied. (Fl) I`l,-•
relief iven was repre.ented by the nuttier .at ,ti 0,...
brought;, fur corning to W.-stmiueeer-hall woo wholl:, • to
•;f the queetion. The great objection originally made to
the act to which he had the good fortune to obtain their
lordships' concurrence in 1851--an act which he hroi no
hesitation in saying had wrought the most beneficial
change which had been effected it our lam procedur i
mcdern4time.—was -o the provision for the examination
of the parties, and which should in justice be ascribed to
the late Lord Denman, for he looked u, on his h.ll as a
mere corollary to the bill t.f Lard Denman of 1842-3
Tee great objection made to the act of 1551 was that if
they allowed the parties to be exrrnined they would hi ve
endless perjury. But what had been the re-oilt ? T at
perjury bad diminished instead of increased. The nun,
ber of compliments 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 in offences generally, for the general corn-
' mitmente increased in the same period from 27,000 to
to 28,000. No ~, he proposed to extend a little further
the right to exawine th I parties. itpresent it was confued
to civil actions ; he 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 ha considered that upon the whole it was demon-
strably clear that this extension of the right should take•
pleas. When the bill of 1851 was sent to the other '
house, the then Recorder of London, Mr. Stuart
Wortley, said great hardahip was.often bailicted, and in-
justice done by there 'being no power to examine pri-
soners or defendants in criminal eases, and that there
were many cases in which the testimony of the parties
would turn the balance either way. At present the-state-
ment ofaprisoner 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 or 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 under the form of an action, instead of by indict-
ment, the defendant might be exa nined 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 be 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
bad seen repeated instances of magistrates not only tell-
ing prisoners that what they said might be used in eei,
deuce 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 to
disapproval of the French system in putting a prisoner to
examination, and comparing what he bad said before the
juge d'instruetion 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 lieeraly given the judges
1,5001. a year, the late Government had reduced most
ef them to 1,200 a year.
Lord CRANWORFH 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 viva voce: He agreed that we were somewhat
prudish on tee suject, and that we often shut out
truth when, by a relaxation of ae role, it might he vt,
at. With regard to the magi,trates cautioning prisoners,
hie noble and learued friend should recollect 'hat hi ato.
of Parliament they were bound to tell prisoners that
what they said would be used against them. Though a
prisoner was not ex twined on oath, yet if he told a co-
herent and probable story, he had observed that it had
always great weight with a jury.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
Lord BROUGHAM then laid on the table a bill to
enable prisoners and thfendants in criminal cases to be
examined on oath, and the bill wed read a first time.