§ LORD BROUGHAM moved for returns of the number of commitments and of convictions for perjury and subornation of perjury in the years 1849, 1850, and 1851. The noble Lord said he had to call the at- 549 tention of their Lordships to a misstatement which had gone abroad respecting the important Act which had been passed two years ago for amending the law of evidence by enabling or compelling the parties to a suit to be examined. He did not hesitate to say that that was a most important Act, and that in its operation it had proved most beneficial. One of the objections which had been taken to that measure when he first had the honour of introducing it was, that it would tend to increase the amount of perjury committed in trials of various descriptions. That objection he had always considered to be wholly without foundation, and in spite of it Parliament had assented to the Bill. He held in his hand a return which had bean presented to their Lordships' House, entitled, "Table showing the number of criminal offenders in the year 1852;" and he found that it contained an abstract or summary of the contents drawn up with very great care, in which occurred a note or paragraph to the following effect hearing upon the subject of the Bill to which he referred:—"In the sixth class of offences, comprising all those not properly falling under any of the previous heads, there has been an increase of 22 9.10 per cent, arising from riots, breaches of the peace, and perjury; the commitments for the latter offence having nearly trebled since the operation of the statute 14th and 15th of the Queen, which renders parties to suits liable to give evidence." Now, he begged leave to state that nothing could possibly be more wide of the fact than that statement. Taking the three years 1845, 1846, and 1847, the average annual commitments for perjury were 31. Taking the three succeeding years, 1848, 1840, and 1850, that average would be found to have risen to 50. But this was wholly independent of and antecedent to his Act of 1851, and when, consequently, there was no possibility of parties to suits being examined, except in the County Courts. That Act came into operation upon the 1st of November, 1851, and it, therefore, affected the case only for two months of that year. The return of commitments for perjury for 1851, however, was not 50, much less 30, but 116. Supposing he deducted the 16 for the operation of the Act during the two months, it showed that the commitments for perjury had in one year increased from 50 to 100, or, in other words, had doubled. No doubt, in 1852 the increase continued, for the commit- 550 ments rose to 157. Their Lordships might ask whence had arisen that great increase? It happened that the next chapter to the Act which had been called by his name, which he avowed having introduced, and thus showed that he did not shrink from any responsibility which might attach to it—the very next chapter contained the Act of his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell)—that most useful Act for amending the criminal law and criminal law procedure. That Act provided greatly increased facilities for the prosecution and conviction of perjury; and owing to that it was that the amount of prosections had increased from 116 in 1851 to 157 in 1852. His noble and learned Friend's Act came into operation upon the 1st of September, and therefore it affected, as his (Lord Brougham's) did not, the whole quarter-sessions during that year, as well as, of course, the whole of 1852. One word as to the nature of the returns, which only gave the commitments, and not the convictions. The proportion of convictions in perjury to commitments was very much smaller than in that of any other offence; but that inferior proportion had been much diminished by the operation of his noble and learned Friend's Act, in consequence of the removal of many technical difficulties which formerly stood in the way. The difference in the proportions was this:—Taking the 157 perjury cases in the year 1852, for instance, the proportion of convictions to acquittals was as throe to two—that was to say, in every five cases prosecuted there were three acquittals to two convictions. In all other offences for the same year the proportion was reversed, there being out of seven convictions two acquittals. He thought it desirable that these proportions should be laid before their Lordships, and he begged to move, therefore, for a return of the number of commitments for perjury and subornation of perjury in England and Wales in the years 1849, 1850, and 1851; also the number of convictions for perjury and subornation of perjury for the same years.
LORD CAMPBELLcould not doubt for a moment that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down had conferred great advantages upon the public. He was not aware that it had tended to increase the crime of perjury, for he himself had not committed for perjury in one single instance. It should be remembered that, though there might be conflicting statements between plaintiff and 551 defendant, it by no means followed that wilful perjury had therefore been committed by either. He believed that none of his learned brethren were now in the habit of ordering such commitments. In this respect, as well as in others, the operation of his noble and learned Friend's Act had been most happy—when it was known that the plaintiff and defendant, who, of course, were acquainted with all the facts of the case, might be put into the witness-box to prove them, it prevented perjured witnesses being brought forward who otherwise might be believed. With regard to the greater number of committals for perjury, he rejoiced to find that his Bill had operated in that manner, because the intention of it was to facilitate prosecutions in perjury and other cases.
§ Returns ordered.