Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-12-14

tally removed from all control or commu-
nication with the principal? Is sucl,
subOrnaiiOp TO affect the credit of the
whole cause, or Is It 10 impracli the parii
cular witness III question? Has not the
law provided very sufficient defence
against such tamprring with witnesses,
10y allowing question To be put To each
witness IN the examination in chief
whether he comes forward Tor any rew ard,
or with any direct interest or certain
expectation Whether lie has received
any thing, or has been promised any
thing And Why Is any other course
necessary than The one thus allowed bv
the law. aud admitted b, the practice of
the courts Let every witness answer for
himself: IL is proper, and The law allows
II. Rul let him not be admitted 10 give
that kind o; general evidence, 10 Which,
(no' being The direct issue before The
eourD there can be no answer in prepara-
ton. and which must moi only unfairly
prejudice the case, but likewise the per
sons rot present TO answer for themselves
One argument. they say, is this The
procuring The Witnesses TO come for
ward by reward, instead Of mere reason
able compensation, asSnredly deprcciatcs
the value of the testimony Of the witness
es so procured. and Of course ought to
be- allowed 10 appear in evidence; aud
the law has so allnwtd il, by admitting
questions 10 be put siugiy TO every wits
ness, whether he has come forw ard under
such lnducemcmt. Aad this is amply sui
hcieut Tor the justice Of The case. To
allow more Is TO perplex The case by the
adhissian at collaicra! issurs-iO throw
an unfair prejudice on absent persons,
tH r. llo
iamper!ng with witnesses, by subordinate
agents, than bclctgs Ia IL. IL is totally
10 put out OF sight all HE rohrrence az
their several testimonies as circumsianiial
cvidcncc. and 10 reject ii pruset ulon by
reason of the ZHal or motives OF the pro-
secuior and his agents. BIZ, il is contra
~ 10 The first principles Of criminal Law
To give this impO lance 10 the good or
bad motives OF the prosecutor himself!
and SIM less OF lis remote a2rnls acting
beg oud tie bounds 1T their commits sian
a proof OF Ibis mischief is already before
The public The principal canse is al
ready obscured IN he iria! oil tits coll.,
terai issue
We have thought it necessary TO state
This question III Il more familiar point 0i
view, because the answer al The chief
justice I've Stale IL With respect Ia the
questions pu, 10 The jG;!grs BIZ The house
OF lords,i rather scientific thap ponuA
lar and because we deem il ol HE first
consequence that the couduct of Tie
lords should appear What ii tsuiy is,abo, =
all suspicion. We will take this onpor-
tunliy OF expressing our own apprnba;lnn.
humble as IL IL, III concurrence with Thai
OF all the public. of The exemplary con
duet of the lord chancellor, who through.
out the whole Of tbis tedious, irving. and
ever 10 be lamenied business, has acted
with exemplary equality and Impartial.
~. We think The earl IF Livcrpoe. is
entitled 10 equal praise: nor musi The
samepraises be ullholden irum ear!Grey
the marquis Of Laisdown, and lord
Etskinp
Oar readers will perceive however, that
not" outstanding the anwers o! The judges,
which were, upon the whole, agains, the
admission Of The evidence; tina, the at,
iorney gemeral'propused 10 The house OF
lords 10 admit II, TO certain extcnl, az d
II has been received accordingly. ",
think justly admitted, upon The p,incipl,
so iorcibiy urged by Mr.. Brougi,am. .l,a
the house OF lords are NJ, merely sitting
as Judges, but as legislators and liza,
the duty which they lave assumed /.
but 10 pass a legislative act.
The opinion OK the Judges havip,
precludcd tue Counsel for her Mairst,
from going into Evidence OF Tie Or cur
ing witnesses 10 come forwar; by higl
rewards, The defence of her Majesty la,
now resumed ITS former direct line, ant
is occupied in meeting lie charges de
| posed 10 by The witnesses for The prose
cuiion. IL Is perfectly reasonable, bow
| ever, thai tins iampcTibg with The wit
nesses should be made In appear IN eyI
| Hence, III so far as u sffecls The value O
| the testimony of those Witnesses vIi,
have been the subjects Off AccOrdinaiy
u We understand The words OF Lort
Liverpool correctly. II Is the intention o
Ills RIaJestys government 20 ati1rd an np
| poTiunily Tor iliS investigation in H.,
most ample manner, and That il has onl,
been stopped al present because IL VA
| proceeding ia mode totally al variapc,
With all the rules Of evidence, aud will
all the practice Of The Courts below, ane
VAS, moreover, throwing an unfair pre-
| Jndis upon the case OF the prosecution
which ~ belonged 10 the alleged prosecti
| tors 10 preventive musI confess. tia
! however ANXIOUS We are thar the Who'll
vt this commission and lis proceeding,
may he investigated, We think there
nothing unfair III The proceedings Of tn
ministers IN taking this objection in ilt
| present stage OF The business the iria
baViDg msuilcs,ly deviated from lis mail
object and original direction, into a tria
OF a collateral issue, wlIich, though no
without effect upon lie cans should no
have been rendered lie main subj ct.
The principal evidence adduced, (op TO u,
Time We are wfitiDgJ since the conclusion o
that part OF the defence relating 10 this tam
periI.g with the witnesses. is that of AIessau
dro OiiViera, Colonel in the French arm,
and JOINT Chamberlain With BERG aui TO III
| Princess OF Wales. This witness deposed /