Witnesses

at all, as such a proceeding was calculated to reflect on the evidence brought forward by the Crown. This rule assumed what was unfortunately not always the fact—namely, that the Crown was desirous of having simple justice done, and that its officers had procured all the evidence obtainable for as well as against the accused. Afterwards a prisoner was allowed to call witnesses on his own behalf, but they were not sworn, and their statements were not only looked on with suspicion, but doubtless in many instances with absolute distrust.

When public opinion could tolerate this unjust practice no longer a statute was passed in the first year of the reign of Queen Anne, whereby it was enacted that "in all cases of treason and felony witnesses for the prisoner shall be examined upon oath in like manner as the witnesses against him." This was undoubtedly an alteration in the right direction. It is somewhat remarkable, however, that although up to this time Courts excluded evidence for the prisoner, judges were not wanting who endeavoured to entrap the accused by asking him ambiguous and improper questions. A notable instance of this occurred during the trial of the Duke of Norfolk in 1572. There are certain