The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-06 00:00:00

had been referred to the twelve Judges, in IT2I, 1758,
1771, and 1780, in which great difference of opinion pre-
vailed as to the degree of proof necessary in such cases.
In one case, Lord Mansfield and two ether Judges were
of opinion that the one species of proof was sufficient,
while the other Judges held that the double proof was ne-
cessary. He begged itardeu of the House for thus troubling
them with details.—( Hear, hear.)—The sanction and sup-
port which his efforts had hitherto received were his best
reward, and at the same time his• greatest encouragement
to persevere in them.—(Hear, hear.)—He begged leave to.
move, " That the House should go into a Committee on
the Law of Evidence Bill."

'Mr. N. WYNN observej, that with respect to the
cliuse respecting Quakers and Mo:avians, he apprehended
it was too unguarded.
Mr. G. LAMB should prefer some security being re-
quired that the person alleging his inability to take the
usual oath, was in reality a Quaker or Moravian.
_ _

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended the clause,
11r. WM. SMITH denied that the exception in favour
of Quakers and Moravians mul anv_hoon to them.

Mr. W. WYNN said, there were few cases in which
an individual who would give his affirmation against a
person unjustly would hesitate to give his oath. But he
believed there were many cases in which an affirmation
would he given in a person's favour, when, if au oath was
administered, his evideace would assume a different com-
plexion. If an instance were required to show how loosely
affirmations were sometimes given, he need only refer to
the numerous instances of prevarication which took place
before that House: .

Mr. PEEL was apprehensive that the introduction of
such a principle would lead to a great laxity of evidence,
for every party who-wished to go as near the wind as pos-
sible, would beg to be released from the obligation of an
oath. The consequence would be, that the general confi-
dence of the country in the administration of the law would
be much shaken. In the case of Quakers and Moravians,
few practical inconveniences could arise, but great encou-
ragement would be given to the creation of new sects, if
every man who wished might dispense with the necessity
of an oath. It would be going but one step further to let
every man choose the terms of his own affirmation.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the subject well worthy of

the Right Hon. Gentleman's attention. Every one was
agreed as to the propriety of taking the affirmation of
Quakers, and there was a small sect in Ireland who en-,
sertained the same opinion with respect to the immorality
of an oath. The smallnqs of their number ought
not to be made an argument for denying them the same
privilege. He would require those who asked to be ex-
empted from the oath to say that they belonged to some
rsiigious society who entertained conscientious scruples
against the practice.
• After a few words from Mr. G. Lasts, and Mr. CUR.-
MS, the clause was agreed to.
Sir EDWARD CARRINGTON observed, that the
solemn affirmation of a Qsaker in point of conscientious
sanction, was equal to an oath, and it is found by experience
that the ends of justice were answered by it; but it would
be dangerous to admit those sects which sprung up day by
day to substitute their affirmation.
The remaining clauses were also agreed to after a few
verbal amendments. The House then resumed, and the
report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
Mr. PEEL moved that the House should resolve itself
into a Committee on the second Bill, for consolidating the
laws respecting offences against the person. •

A Mamma, whose name we could not learn, wished
to know whether the Right Hon. Gentleman intended to
ntroduce any provision for giving magistrates a summary
jurisdiction in cases of petty assaults.
Mr. PEEL admitted that hardships might, and no doubt

did arise under the law as it stood, but if they were to
introduce any clause on the subject, it would be liable to
the objection of increasing the summary jurisdiction of the
Magistrate, and great caution should be observed to guard
that power against abuse.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the

Sir T. BARING alluded to the shortness of the inter-
val between the conviction and execution of a murderer
according to the present law, and observed that the period
was too short to admit of that re-consideration which in
some instances might lead to the respite of the convict.

Mr. PEEL observed, that the immediate execution of
murderers had a great effect in`'
producing intimidation, as
his Right Hon. Friend, the S tare for Ireland, could
testify with respect to that coun He (Mr. Peel) was
N
therefore unwilling to remove an : , ing that would ope-
rate as a check to the crime, unless ere were strong rea-
sons for changing the law, and he did not recollect any
case that would cOuntenkhee such' 4n opinion.
Mr. VAN HOMRIGI-1' (as we understood) stated, that
he was present at a trial ti•hea a man was found gulty of
murder in a case which h thought only amounted to man-
slaughter. Under thatimpression be had applied to the
Judge to grant a respite, but the Judge refused.. He then
proceeded to Dublin, and applied to Judge Downes, who
, recommended him to go to the Castle. Lord Talbot was

then Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Gregory, the Under-Secretary,
informed him that nothing could be done, and he told Mr.
Gregory that in that case the man would be murdered, for
•
it was certainly a case of manslaughter He next saw-the
Attorney and Solicitor-Gmerals, who agreed with him
that it was manslaughter ; but Mr. Gregory said, where is
the use of attempting any thing ? there is not time. Nis
answer to Mr. Gregory wro, " Never mind, let me shave
the respite, and I'll take care it shall be in time." The re-
spite was procured, and he arrived in Drogheda in time to
save the man's life. (Hear, hear.) The letter he took
with him required the Judge to send his notes to town, and
on the evidence of his own notes the case was decided to
be manslaughter. ( Hear, hear. )
Mr. PEEL said, that under such circumstances- there
should be no hesitation in suspending the execution.
The clause, as amended; was then agreed to.
On the clause providing for the punishment of man-
slaughter, which is accompanied by the following proviso,
" that no punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by
any person who shall kill another by misfortune, or in his
own defence, or in endeavouring to prevent the party slain
from-committing any felony, which such party shall then
by force or surprise be attempting to commit."
Mr. PEEL observed, that he considered this proviso to
be drawn up in language too vague and indefinite for legal
enactment. He proposed to leave out the words, " which
such party shall then by force or surmise be attempting
to commit," and to substitute in lieu of them these words,
" which by any justifiable mode he can prevent." He
considered this amendment necessary, because the clause,
as it now stood, would prevent any person who caught a
thief picking his pocket in the Strand-which was a
felony committed by surprise—and who killed him for at-
tempting that felony, front being pronounced guilty of
murder.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that this clause
was attempting an impossibility, in attempting to define
where it should not be murder when death ensued. He
should wish to have the law left its own expositor, with-
out stating when a party killing another should have a
justification for it. It was an excess of legislation to define
a crime, which had better be defined by a jury pro re nath.
—(Laughter.)
Mr. PEEL said that the common law had already do-
_ _

fined several cases in which killing was not myrder..,. The
21. th of Henry VIII. c. a, olowed a man not merely to
kill another in his own defence, hut also to kill another in

preventing him from committing certain felonies which it
enumerated. It enumerated burglary and murder; but
strange to say it omitted rape. Hale and Foster both said
that the statute did not exclude other felonies, and main-
tained that it merely mentioned burglary and murder by
way of illustration. It was to remove any doubt upon the
subject that be wished to alter the law : and he wished his
Hon. and Learned Friend near him to consider the point
before the Bill was recommitted.
Mr. SLANEY said that no doubt a man would be jus-
tified in killing his antagonist, where it was necessary to
save his own life ; but by this clause a right would be
given him to kill his antagonist where the antagonist's at-
tack did not go to the length of affecting his life. He
could wish to insert the word " necessary" before defence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that there was no
occasion to add the word "necessary."
Mr. PEEL—The words "in his own defence" are
taken front a statute as old as In the 6,th Edward 1.,
chap. 9,, it is enacted as follows—" The King commandeth
no writ to issue out of Chancery, when one man killeth
another iu his own defence." To put in the words "ne-
cessary defence," would only give rise to new doubts and
ditflculties.
The clause, as amended by 141 r. Peel, was then agreed to:
On the clause being proposed, rendering shooting at, or
stabbing, cutting, or wounding any person with intent to
murder, rob, maim, &c., capital,
Mr. PEEL said, that in the next two clauses in the
Bill be intended to propose some alteration. Itt the first
clause, which, as the bill now stood, related to murdering
and maiming, he would leave out the word " murder,"
because, in the nat clause, provision was made for the
punishment of attempts to murder. The material altera-
tion effected in the law by this clause was by the addition
of the words "or wound." Those words provided for the
inflictedpunishment. o
fany attempt to murder made by a weapon
contused,which instead of incised or stabbing
wounds. 'lin the case of Howard, who was tried lately, a
man was nearly killed by the blow of a cricket-bat, but
not by a cut or stab ; and there were serious doubts enter.