ROYAL WITNESSES. THE calling of the Prince of Wales as a witness, and the fact of his being sworn in the ordinary way, afford a striking proof that in the eye of the law all men are equal. The privileges (if any) that would attach to the Prince of Wales would not at tach to him in his capacity of Prince of Wales or Heir Apparent to the Throne, but simply in his capacity of a peer of the United Kingdom, as Duke of Cornwall. It is curious to think that a peer of the realm, while sitting in judgment on a fellow peer in cases of felony, either as a member of the House of Lords when Parliament is meeting, or as a member of the Court of the Lord High Steward when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, can give his verdict without oath upon his honor, whereas he cannot be examined as a witness in any cause, whether civil or criminal, or in any court of justice, whether it be an in ferior court or the House of Lords, unless he be first sworn or make the affirmation to which by statute the sanction of an oath is attached. " The respect," as Taylor, in his "Law of Evidence," observes, " which the law shows to the honor of a peer does not extend so far as to overturn the settled maxim that in judicio non creditur nisijuratis ." A peer was, however, permitted under the old law to answer a bill in Chancery upon his pro testation of honor and not upon his oath. This practice led to a curious mistake in an Irish case. A newspaper proprietor named Birch sued Sir William Somerville — after wards Lord Athlumney — when Chief Sec retary for Ireland, for an alleged breach of contract to pay him for articles written in the interest of the Government. The late Lord Clarendon, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of the day, was subpoenaed as a wit ness. An attestation of honor instead of an oath was by mistake administered to him, and he was then examined and cross-exam ined without any objection being taken to the reception of his evidence. A motion for
a new trial was made on the ground that the testimony of an unsworn witness had been received; but the Court, having ascertained that the losing party had from the first been aware of the irregularity, held that the ob jection came too late, and the rule was ac cordingly discharged. ( Birch v. Somerville, 2 Ir. L. Rep. N. S. 243.) Closely connected with the examination of princes of the blood as witnesses is the pos sible examination of Royalty itself in a court of justice. In the impeachment of the Earl of Bristol, in the early part of the reign of Charles I., . a curious constitutional question arose, which Lord Campbell, in his " Lives of the Chancel lors," tells us very much perplexed the Lord Keeper, who was, curious to relate, the Lord Coventry of the day. It remains still unde termined. The Earl of Bristol, in his defence, relied upon communications which had passed between him and the King, when Prince of Wales, at Madrid, and proposed to call the King himself as a witness. The Lord Keeper gave it as his opinion that the Sov ereign cannot be examined in any judicial proceeding, under an oath or without an oath, as he is the fountain of justice, and since no wrong may be imputed to him, the evidence would be without temporal sanction. On the other hand, the hardship of an innocent man being deprived of his defence by the heir to the Crown becoming king was urged, and much stress was laid on the doctrine that substantial justice ought to be paramount to all technical rules. A proposal was made, which could not be resisted, that the judges should be consulted; they however declared on a subsequent day that his Majesty, by his Attorney-General, had informed them that, "not being able to discuss the con sequence which might happen to the prejudice of his crown from these general questions, his pleasure was that they should forbear to give an answer thereto." (2 Campbell's
