THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2144, 17 November 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1875.

We were, forcibly reminded-yesterday of ■'the old statute which condemned accused. persons who.refused.to plead guilty, or not guilty, to an indictment -to-what was so emphatically termed La peinedure et forte. The punishment which these recusants were ordered to undergo has not been so long repealed, but that abundant instances may be quoted of those who actually underwent it, and it is described, though of course in different language, somewhat as follows: —The prisoner..shall be laid on his back in a cell having a stone floor, his right arm shall be drawn to one side of his prison, and his left arm to the other, and his legs in the same manner; and then shall be placed on his naked body as much cold iron^ashe can bear, and more; and on the first day there shall be given to him three morsels of bread but no water, and on the second day he shall be allowed to drink thrice of any water that is near the prison except running water :; and this shall be his diet till"he'-'dies. It is manifest that this was a very unpleasant state of things, especially to the unwilling supporters of more cold iron than they could bear, but perhaps after the first few moments it induced these persons to take a different view of the advisability of recording a plea of guilty or, not guilty; 'we know that it did in some cases, but whether it was equally efficacious in all, history sayeth not. Charles .I. refused to plead, and the wonder is that Milton and his fellow regicides did not try the experiment on him, but, perhaps this refinement of torture was not the fashion at the same time as cropped hair, ' long faces, - and. hypocrisy. But, however this may be, we were, as we have said, forcibly reminded that there is a law in existence which, if it cannot force unwilling witnesses to give evidence, is, at least,, very likely to have the desired effect The instance occurred yesterday. A witness, by name Brown, who was called on to give evidence touching the cjfclth of George. Tavernor, refused to do so? or to take the prescribed oath, unless his expenses were first paid. Now, it is no unusual thing at the Thames, as we ourselves can testify, for witnesses to demand their expenses before giving evidence ; whether they are doubtful of the willingness or ability to pay of those who ; require their services we know not, but so ifc is, that very often the cry is no pay, no evidence." In this last case, how-v ever,,there happily is no difficulty, aa the parties who caused them to be subpoenaed are called upon to pay them, and there is an end to it. But in the case of a witness called to give evidence at a coroner's

inquest the case is different, as tho coroner has no fund at his command out of which he can ordor the witness to be remunerated for his loss of time. This then was the difficulty of the case yesterday. Brown said he had lost two days' work and would not testify^unless paid.> Dr. Kilgour said that unles'B 'he did testify he would lose noL two days' work;, only but very likely a great many Andre, i as it would be his duty to send him to ! gaol. The witness was at first obstinate in his refusal, having some idea, evidently, that having once said what he had said about not giving evidence unless the money were forthcoming he could not in honour act differently. Dr Kilgour having put matters as clearly and patiently before him as he could, and promised that he would recommend that his wages should be paid, Brown was induced to look at matters in a different light, and so an end was put to what, at one time, seemed likely to be a most unsatisfactory kind of business. We say an unsatisfactory kind of business, for no good as far as the object in view — producing evidence tending to throw light on Tavernor's death —is concerned, would have resulted from the com- ' mittal of Brown. The colony would have been put to the expense of maintaining him during his enforced idleness, and, knowing that he had evidence to offer, the jury might have been unable to agree upon a verdict unless that evidence were forthcoming. It was undoubtedly a case of hardship as far as Brown was concerned, so much so that one of the jurymenMr Gillies, we believel— proposed that the jury should subscribe between themselves to meet the justice of Jthe case. This the Coroner could not allow, i.e , he could not allow the giving or withholding of what might be important evidence conditional on the payment or nonpayment of a particular witness, anoT there can be no doubt but that had Brown continued persistent in his refusal he would have been sent to prison. It seems hard for a man to be obliged to lose two days' work, which perhaps he can ill afford, to give evidence which after all may be of but little use ; and it would certainly be no more than justice if the authorities who conduct these sort of cases were allowed to pay witnesses in the same way as witnesses in other cases are paid. The subject is worth consideration, and of immediate consideration too, even if it were only on the ground that it might prevent the recurrence of cases which may not always, in the interests of justice, end so peaceably as the one we have noticed.