Exceptions

in the English law to the rule which I am now considering page 14 —namely, in cases of affiliation, and in certain prosecutions under the Licensing law. Moreover, by an Act of the Imperial Parliament passed last year amending the Merchant Shipping Act, a further innovation was made. Under this Act it is a misdemeanour for the owner of a vessel to allow it to proceed to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and the onus of shewing that the vessel is seaworthy is thrown on the accused, who, however, is expressly allowed to give evidence in the same manner as any other witness. Our own Act of last session on this subject, although somewhat qualified in its terms, has worked very satisfactorily.

It was at one time doubted in America whether the fact of a prisoner entitled to do so not giving evidence was a circumstance on which the prosecuting counsel was justified in commenting to the jury. For a time conflicting decisions were given by the judges, but the law may be taken as settled that no inference unfavourable to the prisoner can be drawn should he decline to avail himself of this privilege. What is a privilege? Clearly a right of which a person may in his own discretion avail himself. Should a prisoner not elect to do so, whether acting under the advice of counsel or not, no unfavourable comment or inference is allowable. The statute in Wisconsin expressly provides that a prisoner may give evidence for himself at his own request, but his neglect or refusal to testify shall create no presumption against him. And the statute in Minnesota enacts that no comment on such neglect either by Court or counsel shall be allowed. If the accused begin to give evidence he may decline at any step to proceed further, and of course, like any ordinary witness, he may refuse to say anything which might tend to criminate himself. As a further illustration of the unfairness of the law in force here it may be mentioned that the