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

that if death ensued in either case, the criminal party
would be proceeded against for 'warder. The neat
point to which the proposed measure referred was—the
wilfol concealment, by a female, of. the birth of her
child.. As the law now stood, it provided, that v here
a concealment of the birth took place,. and the infant
died, or was born dead, the female was. ou conviction,
punished with imprisonment, even though site might
nave been indicted for the murder. For himself, he
did not see any ground upon which any difference
ought to be made between married and single women
in such cases. On the contrary, he imagined that if the
'law was just in the one case it was 'equally just in the
other. Again. he proposed to alter the law of itbduc-
lion, either with intent to defile or marry the female.—
As the law now stood, it extended protection only to
heiresses tolanded property—heiresses to funded or other
property being excluded. By the proposed alteration he
meant to extend this protection to heiresses in all cases of
abduction. Another clause provided, that it should not
be lawful to kill any person in the prevention of a felony
unless all other means for the prevention of such felony
Were previously resorted to without effect. He now
came to two or three cases of much difficulty and deli-
cacy, in which he meant to propose alterations in the
existing law. He felt how unpleasant it was to trouble
She House with such a subject, but he also felt that he
Was, in the discharge of the duty he had undertaken,
called upon lb state them. The three offences to which
he alluded were, rape committed upon grown females ;
carnal knowledge with intent to commit a like offence
upon infants under ten years of age ; and the third was
" the crirnen inter Christinnos non nominandum." The
Right Honourable Gentleman, after entering ,into -a
detail of the evidence necessary to obtain a conviction
in either rf such cases, evidence which, he observeJ,
must consist, first, of proof of the assault; and secondly,
of the party having succeeded in his criminal intentions
—vent on to observe, that by this Bill the first part of
the proof should be conclusive of the guilt of the ac-
cused, it being in all cases difficult, and io some impos-
sible, to substantiate the other part of the charge. He
admitted that such charges were easily made, and Vk iti►
difficulty rebutted, but this formed no ground why
protection should not be afforded where it was most
needed. The Right Honourable Gentleman went on to
cite several cases of violation which had been referred
to the Twelve Judges, in 1721, 1758, 1771, and 1780,
in which great difference of opinion prevailed as to the
degree of proof necessary in such cases. In one case,
Lord Mansfield and two other Judges were of opinion
that the one species of proof was sufficient, while the
other Judges held that the double proof was necessary.
He begged pardon of the House for thus troubling
them with details—(Hear, hea,). The sanction and
support which his efforts had hitherto received were his
best reward, and at the same time his greatest encou-
ragement to persevere in them—(Hear, hear). He
begged leave to move. " That the House should.go into
a Comm.tree on the Law of EvidenCe Bill."
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole
House. on the Law of Evidence Bill. _ _

Mr. W. W. WYNN objected to the clause which
permitted the affirmation of Quakers and Moravians to
be taken in Courts of Justice, instead of an oath, in cri-
minal- c ases.
Mr. G. LAMB was at a loss to know in what manner
it was to be ascertained, whether a man, who offered
an affirmation instead of an oath, was or was not a
Quaker or a Moravian. Was it to be con,idered suffi-
cient fur an individual, wren examined before a Court
of Justice, to say simply, 41 I object to an oath, and
wish to give my affiimation?" The case, as applicable
to Q•sakers, would equally apply to all separatists.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that Quakers
were well known. He would be far, however, from

including in the exception all separatists.
Mr. W. W. WYNN said that any man might-object
to be examined on oath, on the same ground that
Quakers did, viz. scruple' of consciences as to the
taking it.
Mr. W. SMITH stated, that the object sought to be
obtained was, that the cobrse of public justice should
not be obstructed, because certain individuals objected
to the administratii.n of an oath. It was not for the
sake of the Quakers and Moravians, but for the sake of

the public, tt.at it was sought to yield to this scruple,
and he could nqt see why it should be opposed. In
Scotland an affirmation was considered sufficient.
Mr. W. W. WYNN did not consider that an indivi-
dual would be inclined to press harder upon an accused
in coireqsence of having to give merely an affirmation,
but lie diJ consider that there would be many instances
in which individuals would give their. evidence more
favourably for an accused person when that evidence
was not given on oath. At the bar of the House, for
example, there was much mote prevarication than in
Courts of Justice.
Mi. Secretary PEEL thought this question ought to
be viewed with reference to the interests of society, and
not with regard to those of any particular body. It the
principle of admitting the affirmation in the place of the
oath were extended, the effect would be to introduce a
great laxity of evidence- The Hon. Member, who had
alluded to Scotland, should bear in mind that the affir-
mation there was, to all intents and purposes, an oath,
n d an oath of peculiar solemnity ; for the witness de-
clared, "in the presence of Almighty Goa," and as be
" hoped to be saved." The extension of the principle
of the affirmation, however, would be to encourage
new sects, which would inevitably arise if ;teeter ad-
vantages were given to them than others enjoyed; and
if it were extended, it would be necessary to go a step
further, and say that every man should be permitted to
give his testim ny after the form most binding to his
conscience—the effect of which would assuredly be a
great laxity of evidence, and consequently less confi-
dence in the administration of the laws.

Mr. W. SMITH believed that to many an affirma-
tion would be more binding than an oath to others,
administered as that oath was in our Courts of Justice.
L'rd JOHN RUSSELL aid the privilege of an affir-
mation was originally allowed to Quakers as an indul-
gence. There was a sect, which, although small, was
well known in Ireland. called Separatists. They also
thought that the Christian religion forbade all oaths ; be
could not see why they should be prevented from Leing
of benefit to the country because of this scruple. It
should be remembered that persons giving falsetestimony
on an affirmation were liable to prosecutions for perjury
equally as if an oath had been administered. He should
suggest that each person objecting to take an oath should
state his being in connertion with some Society whose te-
nets obliged him so to object. If he belonged to such a
Society, there could be no danger in taking his affirma-
tion ; and if he did not so belong to such a Society.
his evidence would naturally be watched with some sus*
pinion by the Court. In several States of North America,
affirmations were received, and it might be worth the
Right Hon. Gentleman's inquiring whether any incon-
venience had arihen in consequence.
Mr.WA R B URTON wat of opinion that the receiving
an affiratati in from certain parties could jot be attended
with danger.
I Sit EDMUND CARRINGTON (*saved.- that the