Star.
London, England, 1820-08-24 00:00:00

THIRD WITNESS.

Vincent° Car,Tuilo, the Third Witness, was they called ja
and sworn.

Air. Wu-maws, ore of the Queen's Counsel, 'aid be bad a
point to address their Lordships upon, which had not yet ants
before them for &cession. In the observations which be was
about to make, he wished to be understood as by no mesas call.
log in euestion the great body of authorities in that Howe, urn
the subject of the competency of any witness to give evidence be-
fore their Lord sb ips without being under certain solemn sancticne,
It was unnecessary to state, that the belief of a witness io the.
existence of a future state, was indispensably necessary to his
being head as an evidence, and in his opinion it was equally
necessary, in every case, that a witness should be bcur.d by
that obligation which most deeply affected his conscience. l'e
spoke this' upon the authority of the case of Omeston
Parker, In wl. eh it was not only stated that a person no:
having any idea of the existence of a Gob, could not be
admitted as a witness, but all the Judge., including the
Lord Chancellor, went on this precise ground, that the person to
be sworn should be sworn according to the cerement which was
most binding on his conscience. If, in the case of a Chinese er
a Mahometan, instances of which had occurred, it were proposed
that the oaths administered in this country should be takcs
by the witness, who could imagine that that oath would be felt
as a binding obligation upon him ? Would it not be necessary
to have recourse to the ceremony by which he was bound in Lis
own country? Would not our ceremonies give a latitude to and
relieve his conscience from the virtue and obligation of an °nth?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that a perion who slid
not believe in the existence of a Goo and a future state of re,
wards and punishments, war not admissible as an evidence. if
he did believe, and was not a Christian, he must be sworn at-
, cording to the forma of the particular religion be professes.
Mr. Wn.uons said, be had a right to inquire of this • witness
whether there were not In his own country certain ceremonies
material towards the obligation of an oath? He did not at all
impugn the validity of the oath of this witness, but he merely
wished to know, whether the oath had been administered in
conformity with his opinion, and according to what he conceived
the most solemn obligation on his conscience?
Mr. Butionue mentioned the case of Cooper, In 1789, and
dwelt upon a remarkable expression of Lord Mansfield in the
proceedings upon that cue, on referring to the other case of
Omeston a. Parker. His Lordship said, that as the purpose was
to bind the witness's conscience, he should be sworn by that
form which had the most powerful effect upon his conscience.
The propriety of adhering to this rule of evidence, must appear
more strong when the case of an Englishman in China was sup-
posed. If a person from this country were to go to China, and
to pass through the forms by which a Chinese was bound, in
the year 1808, in a trial at the Old Bailee, would be con-
ceive he was bound by the solemn obligation of an oath.—
The Chinese had a china saucer held up before him, and after a
few words were spoken, he said he was duly sworn. Now, if
a saucer was held up before an English seaman in China, no ob-
jection might be made by him to undergo that form, but was be
likely to consider himself bound by it to give true evidence?
Would not the Court in which he should be called upon to give
evidence, rather administer to him that form of oath by vi hi&
his conscience should be most bound? Would it be maintained
that the Court there would not have said, You shall be bound in
the way that most affects your conscience?

The LORD cHANcgLLog consulted the Judges, and
then asked what question her Mnlesty's Counsel wished to ask ?
Mr. WILIJAZ.:: said, he wished to ask, v.h.thtr tver the wit-