Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4530, 27 September 1875, Page 4

Of the Bills introduced into Parliament this session, perhaps none will be more practically valuable, if passed, than that relating to the law of evidence, which was read a second time on Friday night. A knowledge of the leading features of the Bill may be gained from a perusal of our parliamentary report, but it may be here stated that the main object of the measure is to do away with a number of those unnecessary restrictions which now hamper courts in the reception of evidence. Anyone who is in the habit of attending courts of justice will have often been struck by the anomalous state of the law, and will have frequently seen instances in which a dispute might have been completely and equitably settled had theoretical restrictions not rendered inadmissible valuable pertinent evidence. It is these (restrictions which so frequently place law and justice in conflict, and any modification of the former which will make it an aid and assistant rather than a burker of justice, must bo hailed with delight. Several speakers supported the Bill, and one of these gentlemen, Mr. Pyke, expressed an earnest desire to see the law so amended that a conviction for perjurv should bo hedged around with less difficulties, and in the course of his remarks said he thought a man who was proved to have sworn falsely, oven ou points immaterial to the issue, should bo deemed to be guilty of perjury within the meaning of the Act, and amenable to the punishment provided for that offence. But the proposition involves tho acceptance of a doctrine which the Legislature cannot recognise. The theory of the law is, not that a man should be punished for a breach of the moral code, but for a breach of the laws of society—for injury inflicted upon his neighbor. If the false swearing . be not upon n material point, no injury is committed against society, and society can inflict no punishment. Beyond a doubt the crime of perjury requires checking, but the remedy lies, not in a change of the existing law, but a more vigorous administration. Perjury is committed every day, and if prosecutions were more frequent, nnd, in cases of oonviction, sentences more deterrent in their nature, good might be expected to result. As a rulo, a perjuror who attempts to swear away his neighbor's liberty for six or eight years is, if convicted after great difficulty, sentenced to six or eight months' imprisonment. This is mani-

festly a miscarriage of justice. In olden times a perjurer, when discovered, was made to undergo the same punishment as would have heen meted out to the man against whom he committed the crime, had the evil intent been prosperous; and this is a principle which should guide Judges in the administration of the law. The Minister of Justice, iu reply to Mr. Pyke, urged the difficulty in the way of changing the law, and pointed out that if a man were indictable on light grounds, witnesses would be constantly open to prosecutions, the result, perhaps, of vindictiveness.

Some time since, in noticing the present condition of Belgium as regards religious animosities, we mentioned the utter license that the smaller members of the Ultramontane and Liberal Press allowed themselves in discussing each other's opinions. We have before .us two precious specimens of this class of journalism. The first is from an Ultramontane organ, and runs as follows :—" ' Belgium must be cured by a bath of blood. She must be scourged in order that she may return to the truth. . .. . The responsibility for this state of things falls chiefly on those proud ones who under the false name of Liberals have cried, "Let Belgium perish if we cannot govern her." It falls also in great measure on the Catholics, who have too long wished to live in peace with their born enemies, and to make concessions in order to avoid conflict. Some call this prudence, but its true name is cowardice.'" This style of writing would read warmly even alongside that of the rowdy journal whose proprietor and war correspondent asserted that the libation of freedom must be quaffed in blood ; but it is not at all behind the Liberal way of doing things, as witness the following extract from a Liberal newspaper : —" Civil war, dost thou wish it, Loyola ? Be it so, we are ready, but it is to exterminate thee. Come with thy hordes, if thou darest; we will slay thee. Return, and thou wilt see 'la canaille Liberale" at its work. Return, and blood shall flow in torrents ; thou shalt bathe thy frock in it. We await thee."