§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to put a Question in reference to/a statement made on the previous day by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that a person known as Tichborne—[Laughter]—yes, the person known as Tichborne—["No, no!"]—["Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!]—would have the same advantages as regarded his defence as any other prisoner who was charged with a like offence. He desired to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the existence of the Act 30 and 31 of Her present Majesty, ch. 35, sec. 3, whereby any person 867 charged with any offence whatever was entitled to demand from the magistrate by whom he was committed, such assistance as might be necessary to enable him to bring forward material witnesses; and whether this man, having been committed not by a magistrate, but by a Judge, was not, by that circumstance, deprived of the advantages which, under that Act, any other prisoner would enjoy of having the expense of his witnesses defrayed out of the public funds?
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMIf this man thinks that he has any statutory rights, he can try and enforce them in the ordinary way in one of the ordinary Courts. It is not the duty of the Home Office to interpret statutes.
§ MR. WHALLEYMy Question is, Whether, by having been committed by a Judge at Nisi Prius, he is not deprived of the advantages to which he would have been entitled had he been committed by a magistrate in an ordinary Court?
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMThat is a question of law, and the Home Secretary cannot decide it.