The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-06-11 00:00:00

THE CRIMES BILL IN COMMITTEE.

The House was in Committee all the evening on the
C; noes Bill, resuming with Clause 3, which gives
power to the High Court to order the trial of criminals
by special jury.
At the outset Mr. A. J. Balfour proposed to make a
statement of the views of the Government in regard to
the clause, but Mr. T. Healy objected. The Chairman
h Id that, though permission was usually given to a
Minister in charge of a bill to make such a statement,
it could only be done by general consent, and though
Sir W. Harcourt urged that it would be for the general
convenience that Mr. Balfour should be heard, the-
Trish members declined to allow him to make his
4atement. The first amendment moved was by Mr.
O'Doherty, with the view of depriving the clause of any
retrospective operation, and in the course of ite discus-
sion Sir W. Harcourt recommended the Irish membere
to concentrate their opposition on points of real im-
portance, advice which was endorsed by Mr. Parnell as
sound and judicious. In the cud the amendment was
negatived by 180 to 107.
Mr. W. A. M'Arthur moved an amendment limiting
the operation of the clause to cases of murder, man-
slaughter, or other aggravated crimes of violence
against the person, arson, and breaking into, firing at,
or firing into a dwelling-house; but Mr. A. J. Balfour
refused to accept it, 'pointing out that if it were carried
sheep-stealing, the use of dynamite, and other serious
crimes not enumerated in the amendment would be
excluded from the 'scope of the clause. The Irish
members, however, pressed the amendment, but on a
division it was negatived by 203 to 117.
An amendment moved by Mr. T. Healy to prevent a
change of venue when the trial is to be by special jury
was negatived by 153 to 84. An amendment moved by
Mr. T. Healy to prevent trial by special jury in the
Queen's Bench Division, which would limit the right
to obtain an order for a special jury to trials in courts,
of assize, was negatived by 134 to 67; and 2n amend-
ment, also moved by Mr. T. Healy, to exclude the riOit
of the Attorney-General to claim a spefial jury in cases
which can be dealt with summarily was negatived by
135 to 67.
Mr. Mac Neill moved an amendment leaving it to tho
discretion of the Court to make an order fore speeial
jury. It was resisted by; the Attorney-General kr
Ireland, who pointed out the inconvenience of the
application being made tha subject of discussion in
Court; but Sir Charles Russell, who supported the
amendment, objected to the order being made as of
course." He contended it would be nreferable that the
order should be made by the Attorney-General of his
awn volition, but if it was to be made by the Court it
should be left to its discretion. )
- - \of the amend t,

Mr. H Fowler spoke support Jment,
but the Attorney-General urged that, as equal rights'
were given to the prosecution and to the defendant, it
was unnecessary as well as undesit.ble that any pre-
liminary discussion on the ease should take place.
Ultimately the amendment was negatived by 215
to 106. _ _ _

Mr. T. Healy next moved an amendment striking out
the wo, do which gave the defendants right to a special
jury, which he supported in an acrimonious speech,
charging the Government with the intent of giving the
protection of a special jury to Orangemen and offenders
of a special heinous class. This give rise to a discus-
sion which promised to be of an animated character,
when it was interrupted by Mr. Smith moving the
closure. It was carried by 229 to 98, and the amend-
ment itself was at once negatived by 228 to 94.
Mr. W. H. Smith then claimed to move that the
clause stand part of the bill; but Mr. Courtney, who
considered that three of the amendments on the paper
might be fairly discussed, refused his consent, and
subsequently Mr. T. Healy moved an amendment to
give a prisoner the right to be tried by a judge alone
when he was dissatisfied with the jury impanelled.
The Attorney General for Ireland opposed it, and it
was negatived on a division by 227 to 101.
Mr. A. Acland moved a proviso that upon the frial
of any person under the section the Crown shall not
be entitled to challenge any jurors, but that the
defendant shall be entitled to peremptorily challenge
six jurors in eases of misdemeanour and 20 in cases of
felony.
Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Dillon, and other Irish men Lers
repeated the allegations as to jury packing in 'rebind,
which were repuaated by the Attorney-General for
Ireland, and on a division the amendment was
negatived by 218 to 90.
Ultimately the clause was agreed to ard progress was
reported.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock.