Star.
London, England, 1828-05-06 00:00:00

~.

Mr. HAAT DAVTS presented a Poi MA., fleegeons of
Bristol, praying for greater facilities for ion.
General DliaFF rgsentle:l4s ton 'I Men Aberdeen.—
OrdereAzilv FlArlo t supieet.
• SMALL Kr
As ".
.issirLIDDELL rre.eoted etitions from Newcastle-
. . yne and North Shields in favour of the circula-
tion of. Ss!) 41.Nntes. He wished the public to be made
fully acquainted with the views of the Government
upon this vt•ry impottant subject. The withdrawal of
small notes from circulation had materially injured
every ciese in the community, and particularly the ship-
owners. There certainty was some difficulty in the sub-
ject, and he had to express a hope that in avoiding
Scylla they would not fall into Charybdis!—
" Ind& in Scyllam, capiens evitare Cbarybditi."
Mr. BELL concurred entirely with the prayer of
the Petitioners. lie saw no reason why the Scotch
Bankers and Traders should be placed in a dif-
ferent si.uation from the same classes of persons in
England. The withdrawal of small notes had consider-
ably diminished prices, and prevented that accommo-
dation which was necessary to the great body of per-
sons in trade in these countries.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that as frequent op.
portunities would be afforded for a (N.:cession on the
whole subject of the currency, he would not detain the
Honse by any lengthened discussion on the subject.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY wished merely to state, that the
circulation of One Pound country Bank Notes was
merely a matter of credit, and one between the public
and the bankers. •The question was one of great im-
portance, and deserved the serious consideration of the
House.
The Petitions were then ordered to be printed.
Mr. bi A RSHALL presented a Petition from Dewsbury splust
any further Tax on Foreign Wool.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a Petition from Newcastle-upon.
Tyne, praying for a revision of the Laws of Landlord and Tenant.
—.Ordered to be printed.
Mr. AIIIiRCROMBY presented a Petition from a person of
the name of Barrow, complaining of the Duty upon Coals.—Laid
on the table.
Mr. A BERCROMBY presented a Petition from a Person of
the name of Brown, in the county of Wexford, complaining of
Grand Jury Presentments as to• Roads in Ireland.—Laid on the
table.

LAW Of EVIDENCSOWIENCES AGAINST TWIN PERSON.
Mr. PEEL said, that before the Speaker left the
Chair, he was anxious to explain to the House the
nature of the subject about to be discussed. The Bills
in question had been prepared by a Noble Lord (the
Marquis of Lansdown), whilst he filled the office of
Secret*, y of State for the Home Department. The
measure which he was about to propose would intro-
duce some alteration in the Law of Evidence. That
Bill contained only four clauses; the objects of which
were as follow : The first provided that the affirmations
of Quakers and Moravians (under a particular form)
should be received in Courts of Justice in all criminal
cases. As the law now stood, their affirmations were
taken in civil cases ; and the proposed law provided,
that it should be extended to them in criminal cases
also. This became the more essentially necessary,
inasmuch as, in many cases, where persons of those
classes were the sufferers, criminals were allowed to
escape, because neither the one or the other class would
take the oath prescribed in our Courts of Justice. By
the adoption of the proposed clause no injury could
arise, while it would, on the other hand, materially for-
ward the ends of justice—(Hear, hear). The object of
the second clause was, to allow persons interested in
cases of forgery to be received as competent witnesses.
As the law now stood, the party injured by, and theree
fore interested in, a case of forgery, was precluded trom
giving his evidence, which he looked upon as a serious
perversion of the ends of justice. The third clause had
for its object the removal of all doubts as to third per-
sons who erre parties to felonies, not capital, being
competent to appear as witnesses for prosecution,. The
fourth clause was of the same tenour, and provided that
persons convicted of misdemeanour, and having under-
gone the punishment thereunto attached, should be re-
stored to their competency of giving evidence in criminal
cases. One objection to this rule was, however, very pre.
perly made, which was, that all persons convicted of per-
jury should be debarred from giving evidence in such
cases. The second Bill which he meant to introduce, in-
cluded the whole Statute Law of the country relating to
offenses against the person. The effect of this measure,
if carried into a law. would be the repeal of no less than
fifty-seven Acts of Parliament on that subject. These
laws, as they now stood, were obscure and intricate, and
the object of the proposed measure was not so much to
consolidate them as to simplify them and to make them
clear. As the law now stood, a wife murdering her
husband, a servant murdering his master, or a clergy.
man murdering his clerical superior, was considered
guilty of petit treason, and in all such cases the accused
were allowed 35 challenges of Jurors, and two compe-
tent witnesses were necessary to prove their guilt. Now
he could not, in cases of this description, see any good
ground for departing from the general rule adopted in
our Courts in casts of murder ; on the contrary, he
conceived that in all such cases the practice ought to
be unilor its. There was another alteration, too, upon
which he wished to say a few words. According to the
existing law, a person knowingly harbouring and con-
cealing a murderer a as, under the law of William,
liable to imprisonment for one year, or for a greater
period of time. But he thought it wouldhe right
to make this a capital offence, and in support of
his argument he mentioned the recent murders which
had taken place at Fetcham (Surrey), the murder
of Mrs. Donatty, in the neighbourhcod of Bedford-,
row, and the still more recent murder of Mrs. Jeffs, in
Montague-place, as instances of the manner in which
the ends of justice must have been frustrated by the
concealment of the guilty persons. Another criminal
case in which he wished to make an alteration, was the
following :—As t'•e lawnow stood, in all cases where
parties were accused of murders committed abroad, an
examination
.must first tag place before the Privy
Council—witness the case of Governor Wall. This, it
was found, was productive of great inconvenience, and
he meant to propose that an examination before a
Justice of Peace in such cases should be sufficient. The
next point to which he wished to call the attention of
tle House was an Act, commonly called Lord Ellen-
borough's Act, by %hid: all cutting or maiming with a
sharp instrument, or firing with a gun or pistol, with
latent to kill or do some grievous bodily harm, is held
to be a capital offence; while all attacks with the
same intent, if made with a blunt instrument,was vis;ted
iu a different manner. He really could not see where
the one species of attack should be differently punished
from the other, and therefore he proposed that upon
conviction, the puOishment should be the same in both
cases. He would instance a case of very recent occur-
rence, in whiella man, named Howard. attempted,with
a bleat instruh4lmt, to murder a Mr. Mullay, whom he
bad enticed to his residence under certain false pre-
tences. Where, he would ask, was the difference as to
moral turpitude betweenihat case' and the case of an at-
tack with a sharp instrument? Where was the difference
becweenw mortal blow given, or attempted to be given,
with a stick, or with dumb bells, and with a like attempt
made with A • WNW dor a pistol ? It WWI smite clear,