The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-06 00:00:00

l' A RTNERSIIIP3 DIS;;OLV ED,

George and Robert Arbuthnot, Peterhead, shipowners.
George aud Samuel Walker, Wakefield, carpenters.
Lewis Cooper, Louisa Cooper, and Joseph Terris, Nor-
wich, warehouseman.

John Sanely, WilHain Towgood, John Yerbury,
Towgood, jun. Bristol, bankers,

John and Edmund Grundy, and Abraham Wood, Bury,
Lancaster, woollen-manufacturers.
Edward Smeeton and John Smeeton, :grocers, Leeds,
Yorkshire.

Benjamin Denham and Benjamin Edward Denham,
smiths, Bull-and-Mouth-street.

James Goodell, George Sandeman, Alhett VorLtr,
George Gias Sandeman, and Thonvas Was Sandeman,
merchants, London and ()porta.

Thomas Richardson and Deatnian Robson, Bishop-
Witarinouth, Durham, coal-fitters.

John Rutty and William Paildington, nerchants.
Edward Spink and Alexunder Pickering, routeket,
maltsters.

Thomas Morris and William Morris, St, Paul's Church-
yard, upholstery-manufacturers,

Edward Goodall, Thomas Wilmot, and Richard Goodall,
Coventry, hanker..,
J. W. CiarLe and T. S. Clarke, printers, St. John's-
square.

Ann Clemmans and J. J. Clemmans, liolxweltfrow,
Worship-greet, Finsbury, furnitnre.hrolie:3,
Thomas Frodshaiu and JohnpJarrow, Liverpool, grocers.
E. R. Cowie arO.doseph Quwie, Crewkerne, Somerset-
shire, spirit,merchants.

Jolnn SeAscr and Francis Ly Seager, Green-street,
Grosvenou-square, wine-Imerebruts.

Joseph Lythgoe and Thomas Sands Ch4pwatt, Essex_
street, Strand, attorneys.

James Sillito and James, I-tab.:an, -Pontefract, Yorkshire,
grocers.

Bober; I,incilon anti Thos. Walton, Manchester, joiners,
njamin Crowthe Bristol, and Samuel cttotolia,
Newport, Monmouth, coal-merchants.

Robert Owen, Robert Dale Clwen, William Owen, Sa-
rah Walker, Charles Wal;:;..y, William Allen, Michael
Gibbs, Joseph kucts••, and Jeremy Bentham, New Lanark,
Scotlr,nd,

Jonathan Banks, Jonathan Banks, jun. and Alr,ra. hank's,
Liverpool, oil-millers.

Joseph Sheppard, and Thqraus. and John Apperltl:,
Russell-street, Wrcnciathay, tanners.
John and I;',abert Wilhatt, Mursley, hewers.
Thowaa M. and Andrew C. cp.virton, Regent-street,
ailk-mereers.

Michael and William Jenkins, Birmingham, factors.
iiMtIAY, Thomas, and T. R. Cobb, 13,mbury, bankers,
henry Donaldson, and James and M. Wothervoaa, Li-
verpool.

Joseph Croucher and Michael Iliab.?p or Bischoff', Dock-
greet, Roeernary-lane, sugat-Nainers.

Cornelius Purdy c.nd Hobert Arrott, Manchester, mer-
chants,

I,Vill,Lam and Henry Playne, Daniel Smiths ,",,;;..1)1i Baxter,
and W. P. Wise, Minehinhanyton, CUiacesterallire, wool-
len-manu facturers.

B. IL Williams and Wm. itobt. Smily, Royr'.-tixchango,
London, stock-Iy.A.M.

John i;choltield, Joseph Scholfield, and Toui Scholfield,
iiey Chapel, York, cotton-spinners,
Henry Pratt and Thomas Flea, Sedgley, Stoke-upozv.
Trent, millers.

John Kee and John Drake, Mincing-lane, colonial
prod;.;:* brokers.
Thomas Brearey and Chriatopher Myers, York, coach-

(Fram the W
1
In the trial of Burke and M'Dougta. ItitrAfir:
Desday last, a question of much importance in
the law of evidence occurred, and although from •
the late hour of the trial at which the 'question
arose, the discussion was Iniel we conceive th,it
the decision of the Comt was of so much con-
+ equenee in this department. of constitutionai
tea to justify us in thus calling the public at-
tention to the discussion. •
The question alluded to arose in the cross-
examination of hare, the accomplice,' and one of
the chief witnesses fur the prosecution. Mr.
Cockburn very judici ;7
proposed to begii;
that cross-examination, by endeavouring to bring .
out from that degraded person's own mouth, the
whole history of his past life, sb as to show that •
he was utterly unworthy of cl edit. With that
view, after putting a few preliminary questions, .
which at first startled the Court and the Connsel
for the prosecution, Mr. Cockburn avowed, that
he meant to ask the witness, " if he hail ever •
been engaged in any other murder than that
.!
under investigation,"—and to follow it up by
asking, " How many murders he had committed
in the course of his life," and other the like
questions..

- Upon this, the Counsel for the prosecution
objected that such a line of •intesrogation was
utterly inadmissible; they argu ed that a w itness was
under the protection of the Court—that lie was
compellable to appear—but that it would'be a '
grievous hardship, if every man put into the wit-
ness-box could be- examined as to the whole
transactions of '!is life, which he had no oppor-
tunity of explaining by proof in his own vindica- •
tion, in consequence of which it was said that
valuable testimony might often be exposed to
unjust suspicion, and the •kelings and reputa-
tion of every witness wantonly injured and out-
raged. In support of this objection the Lord
Advocate referred to Hume's Treatise on Crimi-
nal Law, vol. 2. p. 340.
To this objection the Counsel for the prisoner
answered, that the doctrine of Mr. Hunie was .
inapplicable, in so far as it referred almost ex-
clusively to questions of admissibility only, and
they maintained that no precedent (at least in
times of any authority) could be shown for shut- •
ting out such information as was here meant to •
be elicited from the witness's own mouth, in or- •
der to establish the extent ef the credibility due
to him. Holding the point as open, it was said
that the propriety of putting the questions ob-
jected to was scar-evident. Witnesses wero. There
instruments presented to the Court snti the Jury,
for ascertaining the truth.— HUic`C it was indis-
pensably necessary that the means of weighing
their value and worth should be as copiously
furnished as possible. Were it practicable, there-
fore, it would be desirable in every case to allow
every thing affecting the character of a witness -
to be proved even by extraneous evidence, but
life was too short to admit of this. When the
reference, however, was merely to the witness
himself, a party already produced in Court, and
under examination, this brief and simple test
could never be refused. If die question also was
new, it was said that the law of England, which
from the greater extent of practice in that coon- .
try, was more mature on questions of evidence,
afforded the most direct authority in support of
such questions as these now objected to. It was
scarcely possible to read the report of any trial
in that country, without seeing numerous in-
stances of cases decided by dexterous cross-ex-
=illations, bringing out from the mouth of the
chief witnesses circumstonces sufficient to cast
their evidence.

The Judges present, by a majority, repelled
the objection to :.he questions proposed. Lord
Meadowbank being of opinion that the ques-
tions were incompetent ; while Lord Mackenzie
and the Lord Justice Clerk thought that the.
questions might be proposed—reserving it to the
witness to answer or not those which related to
criminal accusations against himself.
We are happy that this was the deterldinatiou
of the Court, both for the cake of 'die law and
for the security of the verdict an,ft conviction in
this atrocious case. As few 'paints, however, of
higher interest, and of ice extensive applica-
tion in criminal law, tan arise, we wish to enter
a little more fully into the discussion than wa*
practicably 14 the trial.

Adihough we do not place much reliance on
the older decisions of the Court of Justiciary,
(nor indeed till Mr. Hope came to preside ha
it,) yet we doubt if there has been a period ke
century, even in the Court of Justiciary, ii
which such questions would have, been entirell
excluded. It is true, we believe, that in the,
former practice, the mode or time of introducius
such questions was not exactly that adopted in
Burke's case. The old course was, for the
counsel for prisoners to object in tiniinc. to ntee
reception of such a witness as Flare, and to ofFek
to prove them by his own initial examination,
This was of course allowed ;—and then almost
as gweat a latitude Was taken in canvassing the
history of a suspected witness, out-of hiN own
mouth, as even the English practice allows
after which, the result generally was, that the
Court athnitted him cum 120t11—that is to sav,
reserving it to the jury to judge of the credibi-
lity of the witness, which is just in substance
what the counsel for Burke desired here.
Now, it seems monstrous to argue, that in a
case affecting the life or fame of a party er.
cused, the opportunity of bringing these ciicum
stnnees, so essential to the credit of a witness,
before the Jury, should be lost In., a mere pimc—
tilious objection to the time of putting the ques-
tions. If th 9 fine of examination was competent
in any scrape, no time was too late before the
witness retired, and was out of the reach of the
Court and the Jury. Suppose, indeed, the
questions proposed by Mr. Cockburn, here, I_-iati
occurred to a Juryman, would any Judge have
said•that they were incompetent and immaterial,
and thus precluded the juryman from obtaining
any satisfaction as to the history and character of.
the chief witness on whom his verdict was to
depend ? We can only say, that such a deter-
mination would prohabiy have• been fatal to the
prosecution, v,'ith any jury.
It strikes us that this o'njection, founded on
the time of putting such questions, is something
like a difficulty early started in the Jury Court,
—but now put to rest. It was at first laid down
there, according to the old rules of Scots prac-
tice, that a witness put into the jury-box could •
not be cross-examined except in reference to
something that he had said in chief. But this
rule his been altered by a late statute, and it is
enacted that a witness once called in the Jury
Court, can now be examined by the opposite
party on every thing pertinent to the issue.
But it was argued that such a latitude of
cross-examination as Burke's Counsel proposed,
would expose every witness in a Court of Jus-
tice to the,most cruel oppression, for which there
is no remedy, in so far as insinuations against
his character and reputation may thus be intro.