intended to communicate them to the House and the public?

Amendment proposed,

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. HEALY said, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be unwilling to give a pledge that the shorthand writer's notes would be produced in any particular ease in which it might be desirable to refer to them.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that, as far as he was concerned, he had no objection to give such a pledge.

MR. MACFARLANE urged that the judgment of the Court, as recorded in the shorthand writer's notes, should be made available to the public, because it was highly desirable that the public should have authentic information on so important a subject. It was especially necessary that the Irish public should possess this authentic information, in order that they might judge for themselves without waiting until a Return had been moved for in the House of Commons of the reasons given by the Judges for their decisions.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the Government had considered how the case of a person acquitted in a county other than that in which he was committed for trial might best be met, so far as his return home was concerned. They had decided that where the object of the person so acquitted was to get back to his own county, he should be sent there at the cost of the public. He therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, the object of which was to give effect to that decision.

Mr. Healy

MR. HEALY presumed the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware, when he put his own Amendment on the Paper, that the Amendment on the same subject of which he (Mr. Healy) had given Notice was taken, word for word, out of the Coercion Act of last year. One would have thought that the Government, being so fond of the Act of last year, would have been willing to adopt this wording. However, the difficulty presented by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that a man might be committed for trial at one end of a large county and tried at the other, in which case the provision for sending him home free of cost would not apply. In the case of the county of Cork, for instance, a man, after acquittal, might have to travel for perhaps 150 miles through a district in which there were no railways. The expense of this alone would constitute a great hardship; and he was quite at a loss to understand why the Government could not discharge the individual within five miles of the spot at which he was arrested. He thought that the Government should either add words to their Amendment to meet that case, or accept his Amendment, which, as he had before pointed out, was taken from their own Act of Parliament.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he should have thought the words on the Paper implied that a man was not to be put to the expense of having to go home on foot.

MR. HEALY urged that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not come into operation until the prisoner was actually removed from the county where he was arrested. His own Amendment would operate whether the man was removed from that county or not. He repeated that, under the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the case of Cork, the largest county in Ireland, a man might

MR. TREVELYAN said, he should imagine that a man acquitted under the circumstances indicated in the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was in the position of a discharged convict, so far as the cost of getting home was concerned, and would be treated accordingly.

MR. R. T. REID proposed to add, at the end of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the words—

“Unless he shall himself prefer to be discharged nearer to the prison in which he was last detained."

MR. MORGAN LLOYD said, when a man was tried and acquitted he was absolutely entitled to be discharged; and to detain him as a prisoner in any place after he was acquitted appeared to him to constitute a great injustice.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL pointed out that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman contained no such word as "discharged." The words were-"He shall be entitled to be conveyed free of cost."

MR. PARNELL said, he thought the objection of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would be met if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to leave out of his Amendment the words

"At any place beyond the limits of the county

in which he was committed for trial."

There were undoubtedly counties in Ireland like Cork, in which a man would have a considerable distance to travel in order to reach his home after being tried and acquitted within the county. It seemed to him only just that a man acquitted under this Act should not be exposed to any hardship on the ground of expense.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, it must not be supposed that because a man was acquitted by a special tri

MR. LEAMY contended that, in the matter of expenses, a man should be treated exceptionally who was acquitted by an exceptional tribunal. If a man was brought before an ordinary tribunal he would be tried according to the ordinary law; but in the present case he would be tried in a special manner. He thought the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) ought to be accepted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, as the point in question was not a very large one, he was willing to make the alteration in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork.

MR. MARUM pointed out that, according to the form of the Amendment, it seemed to be assumed that the person had been in custody and tried, and that then, on acquittal, his expenses were to be paid. But he must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there were many cases in which men would be out on bail in their own localities. These, he thought, were entitled to their expenses; and, indeed, he did not see how their claims could be resisted. According to this Amendment, also, it was more likely that the person acquitted would be a bail prisoner than otherwise; and, as the principle was admitted that a man's expenses should be paid when he was brought a long distance from his own locality, he considered that there should be some solatium in the case of persons out on bail in

their own localities.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "at any place beyond the limits of the county in which he was committed for trial."-(Mr. Parnell.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to explain to the Committee on what principle in future the expenses of prisoners, other than those tried under this Act, could be refused to them?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the concession in the present instance was not made on the ground that the prisoner was tried by a Special Commission. If the question were raised with respect to the prisoner's expenses

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to. MR. MARUM said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would take into his consideration the point as to the expenses of bail prisoners in their own localities. He did not wish to put the Committee to the inconvenience of discussing an Amendment on this subject.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he had seen no Notice of an Amendment to this clause dealing with the subject. He must, therefore, take time to consider the question.

MR. CALLAN wished to add to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman just adopted by the Committee words to the effect that a copy of the shorthand writer's notes of the Evidence and the Judgments of the Judges should be supplied to the party accused or to be tried on application to the proper officer. He hoped the Home Secretary would have no objection to allow these words to be added.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, this was not, in his opinion, the proper place. The shorthand writer's notes could only be wanted in case of appeal, and, therefore, the Proviso was inadmissible in this sub-section.

MR. CALLAN said, he wanted to have the matter so arranged that the notes might be used for the purpose of appeals. There was no intention that the Proviso should be applied to summary jurisdiction cases; it was only required in cases where a man had been convicted by the Special Commission Court, and meant to appeal. He felt sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see the desirability of supplying this most necessary information to the prisoner.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) pointed out that the question raised was one of procedure, whereas this was a clause simply giving jurisdiction. It was desirable, no doubt, where a person was convicted, and an Sir William Harcourt

MR. CALLAN appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney General to point out in the Bill any place at which the Proviso would be more apropos than the present sub-section (4), which said that

"A person tried by a Special Commission Court shall be acquitted unless the whole court concur in his conviction."

And the Committee had just adopted the Amendment of the Home Secretary for the payment of a prisoner's expenses in case of acquittal; he only wanted the sub-section to express that, in case of conviction, the prisoner should be furnished with a copy of the shorthand writer's notes of the Evidence and Judgment; and certainly he could see no better place to make the Proviso than he had indicated.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) suggested that the hon. Member should look to page 15 of the Bill, on which the rules of procedure were set out, in the belief that he would find there a much more appropriate place for the Amendment.

MR. MACFARLANE proposed to move that a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Superior Court should be available to the public. The Government had admitted the principle in the case of the Inferior Court. It was sufficient that the prisoner alone should have the report.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT asked the hon. Member for Carlow not to press this matter, because all the ordinary channels of information would be open to the public. Judgment would be entered in precisely the same way as in this country. The hon. Member would have an opportunity of raising his point on the Schedule.

MR. CALLAN said, the Attorney General for Ireland being now in his place, would probably be able to reply more satisfactorily than his learned Colleague the English Attorney General upon the point raised with regard to

with a copy of the shorthand writer's notes for the purpose of appeal. He (Mr. Callan) wished that these notes should be supplied to the prisoner immediately he was convicted for the purposes of his appeal-not after he had given notice of appeal. The object was that the prisoner should be able to take the advice of his counsel upon the judgment of the Court. He asked the opinion of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to the propriety of moving the Proviso at this part of the Bill?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) concurred that the best place for the insertion of the Proviso would be found in the Schedule.

MR. CALLAN asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that it should be inserted in the Schedule?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) signified assent.

MR. PLUNKET said, in the absence and at the request of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he proposed to move the Amendment next upon the Paper. He agreed in the fairness of paying the reasonable expenses of witnesses for the defence, because there was strength in the argument that, inasmuch as the tribunal proposed to be erected by the Bill was an exceptional tribunal, exceptional hardships might be imposed upon the prisoner. To that extent it was fair, no doubt, that the reasonable expenses of the prisoner's witnesses should be provided for. But the case which this Amendment was intended to meet was that of a witness who resided in the same county where the trial was held, and these persons would be put to no more inconvenience or hardship under the Bill than if they were called upon to attend at the ordinary Assizes of their counties. He saw no reason why, in that case, the ordinary practice should be departed from. The question was, from one point of view, rather for the consideration of the Treasury. Still, he put it to Her Majesty's Government to say in what sense the fact of the tribunal being exceptional was to make everything else in the Bill exceptional also. He hoped, if the provision of this sub-section were to be extended to a prisoner tried in a county where the

Amendment proposed,

"insert

In page 2, line 12, after "witnesses takes place."-(Mr. Plunket.) "resident out of the county in which the trial

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, in England, under certain circumstances, there might be expenses if a witness was within the county, and the extension given in this Bill was very slight indeed. He desired to make all the allowances under the Bill as liberal as possible, and where he could ease the Bill and make it less oppressive he was desirous of doing so.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT said, there was an additional reason for being as generous as possible in the fact that the Bill was taking away the safeguard to prisoners of being able to place their cases before a Grand Jury.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON proposed an Amendment with the object of enabling the Government to grant expenses in the case of poor persons charged with treason or treason-felony for the payment of counsel. That proposal, he thought, would certainly appeal to the good feeling of the Committee. He could not agree with the view expressed on the other side of the House that prisoners in such cases were not in a different position from prisoners tried in the ordinary way; but he only proposed to extend this Amendment to charges of treason and treason-felony. Everybody acquainted with the law knew perfectly well what difficulties surrounded the charges of treason or treason-felony, and how difficult it was to define those offences. Unless poor people were provided with counsel they would not be able to meet such charges with a reasonable publicity of escape. It might be asked why they should be placed in a better position now than they were in previously? The reason was this-there was a good old principle of English law, that where prisoners were undefended the Judges should be counsel for them; and that principle had been acted upon

throughout our Constitution. It prevailed so far as to form one argument used by the Judges against the prisoner's counsel; but now that position was to be destroyed, because the Judges were to be in the position of a jury, and it would be impossible for them, in any sense, to act as counsel for the prisoner. Having put the prisoners in a worse position than before, and taken away the great safeguard of Judges seeing that nothing unfair to the prisoners should be urged, and having left the prisoners undefended, except in so far as they were able to incur the expense of employing counsel, it was only fair, in such cases as these, that the Government should do something in this direction for the protection of the prisoners.

Amendment proposed,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, he thought there was some misconception as to the practice in Ireland in such cases. It had always been the practice in cases of murder for the Crown Solicitor to provide the fees for counsel if prisoners were undefended; and the Government did not see why the same practice should not exist in cases of treason and treasonfelony. It appeared to them reasonable that the same practice should apply to those cases, and they therefore would accept the Amendment; but he would suggest the insertion in the Amendment of the words " or murder."

MR. PARNELL asked whether it was worth while to make any exception at all? It would be better to extend the principle to all the offences in the clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the Government could go no further. A line had been drawn in the category of offences, and they must adhere to that.

MR. LEAMY asked if there was any objection to extend the principle to cases of manslaughter, for which a man might be sentenced to penal servitude for life? It was much more important for a prisoner to have counsel before three Judges than before a jury; and he thought a prisoner might be allowed

Mr. T. C. Thompson

to have counsel on a charge of manslaughter, provided, of course, that the Judges were satisfied that he had no means of paying counsel himself. The police would be quite able to ascertain that.

MR. P. MARTIN said, he hoped the Home Secretary would extend the principle to all the classes of offences. There was to be a special and exceptional tribunal; and he thought the same system might be adopted as that which had been, he might say, the uniform practice in the case of all Special Commissions in Ireland. Where circumstances necessitated their issue, the Crown assisted in defraying the cost of the attorney and the fees of counsel retained for the prisoner. That practice was not limited to murder, but was applied to all the offences enumerated in this clause. Some of the gentlemen who were now Judges in Ireland had been sent down to such Special Commissions, and been paid by the Crown to represent prisoners. Under these circumstances, as a special and exceptional tribunal was to be created, he hoped the Government would provide poor persons with the means of being defended by counsel. There existed no grounds for limiting the provision. The reason for its adoption was even greater than in the case of Special Commissions, as the Committee should bear in mind that the venue was to be wherever the Lord Lieutenant might select. He might select a venue where solicitors whom the prisoners might know were not present; and then the prisoners would be obliged to fall back on counsel. In such cases, it would be a subversion of justice for prisoners to be tried before these three Judges without having the assistance of counsel.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he hoped hon. Members would admit that he had shown every disposition to go as far as he could in acceding to requests; but he did not think he ought to go further in this matter than treason and murder.

MR. LEAMY said, he thought one observation by the hon. Member (Mr. P. Martin) was worthy of further attention. A poor man might be taken, say, from Cork to Dublin, and, unless he had the means of engaging counsel in Dublin, he would have to go without any defence. In his own place that man might be able to scrape together a