The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-09 00:00:00

DUCHY OF CORNWALL.

The Duchy of Cornwall Leasing Bill went through Cony
mittee, and was ordered to be reported on Thursday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Lord DENNIAN rose to move the second reading of the
Bill to improve the Law relating to Evidence. He begged to
call their attention to the great importance in the administra-
tion of the law, of that part of which he ventured to propose a
great change. But he believed ho might say that the principle
of the change was admitted by every one who was conversant
with the prac!ice of our Courts of Law. It was the opinion of
Lord Mansfield that witnesses ought not to be excluded from
giving evidence because they were interested in the matter at
issue ; for it was most important for eliciting the truth that
I .every person should state every thing which he knew, and that
evidi nee of interested persons should go to the Jury, upon whet
credit they could attach to it. The object of the present Bill
was to receive in all cases the evidence of interested
persons, except the parties to a suit. Besides the
importance of gettng the truth by all possible means,
there was another reason for the change which he proposed.
It was the extreme difficulty in deciding what degree of interest
was sufficient to disqualify a witness. There was no difficulty
.which led to greater litigation and inconvenience. There was
no book in the Courts in which there were not cases of doubts
arising on this question, and occasion ng great delay, great
waste of time, and great expense and vexation to the suitors.
Ile thought he wed say no more to recommend that part of
the Bill to their Lordships, and he was happy to say that it
had been suggested to him by some of his brethren now on
the bench.—( Hear, hear.) But on the second part of the Bill
there was railter more doubt ; but he thought, when their
Lordships c me to consider the r. axons which he would have
to submit to them, they would see that the proposed change
was desirable, and of great importance. They knew that by
the law of England a man who was once convicted of certain
crimes—of some felonies, and particularly of perjury—had his
mouth closed to the end of his days, however important, however
necessary his evidence might be to reveal the truth. Yetit never
happened at our Assizes and Criminal Courts, when great
oife..res were commit ed by many persons together, but that
Derso.is were put into the box covered with crimes, avowing
thernsidvi s guilty of crimes, and of the worst of crimes, the
hetrayal of their associates into the commission of crime.
Thin efore it was clear that it was not the commission of
crime which prevented criminal courts in England from
roceising the evidence • f a criminal. But if it happened
th it one of the accused had the means of obtaining a record of
the IA itness's conviction, he could exclude his evidence—
( Hear, hear)—and, on the other band, if the prosecutor had
the means, by his wealth and influence, to obtain a pardon,
his witness became again admissable, so that their Lordships
would see that the law was rather whimsical in this re,pect.
It was mere matter of accident whether a person
against whom such a witness could sp .ak should escape,
or one in whose favour he could give evidence should
be convicted.—( Hear, hear.) This showed that it was
not the commission of crime which rendered evidence ino:
miisible, but that depended on accident ; on the wealth, con-
sideration, or legal knowledge of either side.—(Hear, hear. )
Now, there was one crime which seemed reasonably to be a
ground of exclusion—that was perjury. It seemed reasonable
that if a man was once convicted of falsehood in a Court of Jus-
tice his evidence should not be received again ; and it was said
that this was an appropriate punishment. But it was, in fact, not
a punishment on him, but a punishment on those to whom jus-
tice was denied by his exclusion. But even this was sub-
ject to the same accidents which he had just pointed out. The
record of his conviction must be produced, and even then his
pardon might be obtained, as has often been the case. But he
might be in possession of most impottant facts, and
he alone in possession of those • facts, from which
would come the elucidation of truth, the condemnation of the
gulty—the acquittal of the innocent. Therefore, he appre-
hended their Lordships would feel that to any person
in that situation , preventel from laying that evidence
before a jury, that great injury would result.
Now he had a case before him bearing upon this question. In
the course of last term a gentleman called on his attorney to
account for large sums of money received for him for several
years past.. Ile was required to put in an answer, and It* did.
so, stating in that answer the person to whom he bad paid the
money belonging to his client. The client had, for some years
past, employed a steward, and he .it was to whom the money
had been paid. The client who brought the attorney before
the Court to answer for this malappropriation of the money,
produced in Court the copy of the record of conviction, for

•
perjury, of the very man whom he had put in communication
with tile attorney, and then this attorney was deprived of the
evidence of this man, in consequence of the production of a
copy of the retard of the conviction for perjury. Now this
was a perfect case in point —it prOved the propriety of an altera-
tion in the law. Great inconveniences were daily arising
in consequence of the law as it at present existed, and yet they
were unable to remedy the evil in one ease, without carry-
ing the principle thoughout: If in its application it was
found to Le wrong, and no person endeavoured to make it
light, by applying it to all cases, it ought not to be applied
to any case in particular. The two first objects of his Bill
were to admit to the healing of the Court, and to the con.
side' ation of filo Jury, persons whose evidence was in doubt,
vhd others who had previously been convicted. To these
points he bad added tao others of minor importance; one
was to alfoa Baptists the privilege of making an affirmation
instead of taking an oath ; and the tether was to regulate the
proceedings of the Grand Jury, where some of their body en
tertained religious serup'es against taking an oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not rise for the purpose
of opposing the second reading. On the contrary, he
was disposed to support it. He believed that the opinion
of the generality of professional men in Westminster-hall cor-
responded with the view taken by his Noble Friend. It ap-
peared proper to him that the Bill should be allowed to be read
a second time, in order to its going into Committee ; but at the
same time he thought it.should niit go into Committee till after
the Circuits, in'or2er that the first legal authorities should give
their opinion on the subject. He always thought persons of
whatever character should be allowed to give evidence to a
Jury, the Jury after to decide upon their credit. At present,
that law was full of absurdities and contradictions. A person