I think, in view of the extreme speed with which we got through the last Bill, the Minister should be congratulated on having found some errors during such a short period.

I am not quite sure he would admit that they were errors. You will remember, Mr. O'Higgins, that some trouble was suggested about Section 2 of this Bill.

I have looked into that in the meantime, and I find that Sections 2 and 3 should really be taken and considered together. The object aimed at is to secure that when the accused person avails of the right which the Bill gives him of giving evidence in his own defence, it shall not affect the existing right of counsel for the defence to have the last word where no evidence is called.

In other words, it would be the same as if he called no evidence?

That is the purpose of the amendment.

The thing ought then to be in the one section, I think. However, it does not really matter.

I would have no objection to making it one section, with two sub-sections.

Then you would have to alter the whole enumeration. I think it is plain enough now. It would hardly be worth your while to alter the whole enumeration of the clauses.

Another point, Sir, raised by me on section 5——

Yes, that is an important matter.

As to whether the words "criminal proceedings" include prosecutions under the Licensing Acts, the Children's Acts, and so forth. I looked into the matter last night, and I find that it was unnecessary to raise this point. The Bill is practically word for word a copy of the English Act of 1898, and this very section came up for consideration on a case stated in 1904. There was a prosecution against a father for cruelty to his children under the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I think he was asked in cross-examination if he had been previously convicted of a similar offence. He admitted that he had, and he was convicted and sentenced. A case was stated by the justices, and it came before the King's Bench. They held that the words in Section 5, "criminal proceedings," included criminal proceedings of every kind and in every court, and that, therefore, the conviction was bad; that though it was possible to ask him a question of that kind under the Act under which he was convicted, it was not possible after this Act was passed to have him cross-examined as to his previous conviction. Therefore, it would be quite unnecessary to define "criminal proceedings."

I am afraid that I do not quite follow that. You are assuming that the Irish courts would take the same view as the English?

I am assuming that they would follow that decision.

Is not that a very violent assumption?

I do not think so, Sir, if you read the Act.

The thing would be completely got over if you said that it shall apply to every criminal proceeding of every nature.

I am quite willing to move that.

I think it ought to be made plain.

It will make it absolutely clear.

Because, you see, in some of these matters it is very difficult to say whether they are civil proceedings or criminal prosecutions, I mean cases in which there is only a fine or a penalty attached. It is not always easy to say whether it is a civil or criminal matter, I think. Are you satisfied with that as it stands, Mr. O'Higgins?

Yes, sir, but I would not object to the insertion of the other words if they are considered desirable. My advice is that the words in the Bill will cover all summary prosecutions and offences punishable with imprisonment, or imprisonment in default of the payment of a fine, and that a definition would be difficult and would scarcely serve any useful purpose.

I think a definition would be difficult unless it is a definition to say that it would cover criminal proceedings of all kinds, and I think that is involved in the word "all." Probably it is wiser to leave it alone.

Bill ordered for Final Stage.