THE Thames Advertiser FRIDAY, SEPT. 18, 1874.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1861, 18 September 1874, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser FRIDAY, SEPT. 18, 1874.

The. resolution coma to by the Hospital Committee not to proceed with the investigation requested by the medical staff and the employees of the Thames Hospital, until preliminary inquiries shall have been made as to whether one or more witnesses in the case have not been,tampered with, must be a cause of surprise and disappointment to all who are interested in the welfare of that institution, ; Could it have been shown by the rev. mover and his supporters, •. that any ■ good result; .would follow the adoption of a course other:wise . objectionable : as involving a serious loss of time, or indeed that any result whatever, except that of further dividing the members of the committee, would be produced by his action, there would have been some justification for the vote, but no attempt was made to explain the' advantages to be derived from this preliminary procedure, which was urgecl solely on the grounds of danger to the sub-committee, and, if the charge of tampering should be proved against any member of the committee, of the impropriety ot- that member taking any further part in the inquiry. As regards the position of any member of the committee assumed to have been guilty of the charge made by, Mr Hill, it must have beeir known to that gentleman that the Hospital Committee has no power .to disqualify any of its members; and it may be conjectured that any member who would be guilty of tampering with witnesses would hardly be shamed into retiring from the scene. .In any case, ho could not be compelled to do so ; and whatever may be Mr Hill's individual view on the point, it is only an opinion, and can afford no solid ground for supporting the resolution. Now as to the dangerous position which Mr Hill fears, the sub committee will be placed in by these underhand practices. The only witness said to be. tampered with> whose; name was given, is that of Miss Milgrew, characterised by Mr Hill as "our best witness." Assuming this person to have been tampered with, the information that such was the case must have been furnished either-by herself or by her tempter. It is not probable that the intelligence would be communicated by the latter party, who would be thus inculpating himself; it may be therefore safely concluded that Milgrew herself gave it, and that being so, for what purpose? Was it to exalt herself by showing that she was proof against temptation 1 Was it for the purpose of mating a bargain with the subcommittee ? Or was it for tho purpose of warning the members of it against treachery ? Whatever ! idea may be taken up as to her motives for the revelation, it would be difficult to find one hostile to the prosecution or to the sub-committee, it is therefore more than ridiculous on the part of Mr Hill to alarm himself or the other members of the sub-committee as to anything this witness is like to say on tho subject, She is doubtless " their host and will continue to bo so to tho end el tho chapter. .But supposing Milpw bad not boon " tiioir .bust wltne**," m\ that some real ground of apprehiinsiun oxistod as to hor tulliewnoe to former statements, what necessity would \\\m then have linen for tho course tttfeen. by Mr Hill mid his friends t If he Mm\ to protect hunsalf ami tho su\)'(soVfti\\lfe» too from tho eonaeqiumcca of preYiU'left* tion or false sbtomoiits, could nob that) havo boon equally .well elMad al my, stage of tho in vtMtiguilon 1 Ho \\ih\m need orimimtto himself ovou umlor tho obligation of an oath, anil \\ Htatoimut mado nt tho beginning of tho Inquiry by any witness can bo no mora reliable than any otlior iniulo in tho middle or' attho end of tho Puttiiig tho improbable mid oxU'omo oiuio of tho witnow Milgrow denying hor former assertion, and Happening this denial to bo miulo nt tho oommonoomont of tho inquiry, what bettor position would tho committoo bo in lor carrying on tlio investigation,. * and ;\yhat;. protootion would bo afforded to tho aub-ooinmittoo by tho oarly discovery that one of tho witnoHsos upon whoso 1 Htatom'oht 1 they had rolled, was not reliable 1 Tho faot is, tho Bub-oommittoo can run no risk whatovor from the effects of.ono witness being tamporod with. They are already oponly charged with publishing in t}io report ovidenoo' : 'whloh was not given, and suppressing evidence which was given, and in these circumstances they protond to tromblo for their character, supposing, wo imagine, that other people will value Milgrew'a evidence as highly as they saem to oty ani take, hav

word in preference to theirs, TVe regret the action taken by the sub-com-uiitteo on Wednesday evening. They ought to do everything to further the investigation, instead of attempting to delay or evade it. They couWvery easily have put the question W each wituess as he or she came up for examination, whether anyone had attempted to " tamper" with them as to their evidence, and this plan would have been quite as effectual a3 raising up anew object of inquiry, which involved delay. Besides, others besides the subcommittee, who "are on their trial," have as much right to raiso questions of tampering, and we aro inclined to think they could do it with at least the same amount of truth. At the next meeting, some one of the committee may get up and say that he has reason to believe that Maurice Power has been tampered with, hint' that Messrs Hill and Mcllhoneare the guilty parties, and demand a preliminary investigation into the charge made on a mere hearsay or imagination. The sub-committee, by this action, have put themselves further than ever in the wrong, and have convinced many that, whatever the,merits of the case, the members of that subcommittee were unfit men to act as judges. ... . .