The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-10 00:00:00

in the Yury Law, as established by tile BRA( 1826. by
that law the number of Special Juries was to ha reduced by
chance. The present Bill proposed to erect a division of
the county of: Suss Ox into the two districts of Horsham
and Lewes; and'.:tra create one, for one of these divi-
sions, and anoer for the :remaining one. He was
opposed to Altell a division, and thought that the law
ought to he nnifotm. It was said that this Bill was intro.
ducesi on, account of the inconvenient distance of the
Assize town, from different parts of the country. But
the samts4thjection, though eicisting more strongly with
tespeo to the Common that the Special Jury, was not
merle in their favour. In Somerretshire, and in Surrey,
the Assizes afire held in three places ; in Norfolk, in
h'"lierkshire) and in Buckinghamshire at tett ; if the
principle of this Bill was good) Other Acts ought to be
passed dividing those toUnties into as many districts as
there were assße ttWns in them. But he objected to the
Bill on another principle, namely, that it would iterate to
the 'prejudice of plaintiffs in some east% Suppose a poor
man brought an action agaitibt Magistrate for illegally
committing him to prom Walt that action to be tried by
a iury of brother Magistrates selected from the same dia.'
triet with the defendant? Certainly not, It-asides, as
this. Bill %vas now framed, the selectiqu of the Jury must
depend on the district division n the county in which the
assizes were held. That town depended on the will of
the Judge, In Sussex itself the assizes were once hell at
East Citinstead ; and suppose the Judges should choose to
hold the assizes at Brighton (which he thought would
soon be found to be most convenient), what would become
of this Bill? He thought that in every way the Bill was
objectionableond be should therefore move that it be read
a second time this day six months.

Mr. IletillES seconded the amendment
Mr. W. lIURRELL contended that Juries in the
Western Division of the county would be just as impar-
tial as Juries from the' ounty generally. If any suspicion
arose, it waswell known that in cases of Special Juries the
parties to the action might strike off whom they pleased.
Mr. O'CONNELL referred to one county of Ireland
Which was similarly circu Mstanced to Sussex, anti expressed
his hope that the principle of the Bill would be extends('
to the Sister Kingdom. He . repelled the objection taken
to narrow and local jurisdictions, anti argued that it Was
highly beneficial that every poor man should have a law-
shop near his home. In England neither party bad an
advantage over the other, as juries were drawn by lot.
Sir J. Stizt.t.xv, Sir E. KNaircilauLL, and Sir C. BUR.-
mat supported the Bill.
Mr. JOHN WOOD thought the principle of the Bill
so good that he would have it extended to other counties
of England requiring the same change ; and be particu-
larly instanced Lancashire, where the assizes were held in
a remote Corner of the county, whither suitors, witnesses,
and jurors were obliged to repair. This circumstance of
itself operated as a denial of justice to the poor.
Mr. CURTEIS was happy to hear from his Hon.
Friend (Mr. W. Burrell) that he intended, in the Com-
mittee, to extend the provisions of the Bill to Common as
well as to Special Juries. He hoped that the principle
would he extended to other counties.

Lord monporii expressed his opinion that stieh a
measure could be advantageously applied to Yorkshire.
A 51E-atuxu under the Gallery wished it to be applied
to Sornersetshire.

Mr. CAMPIUML withdrew hie amendment, in defer-
ence to the opinion of the !louse.
The Bill was then read a second tune, And the Commit-
tee fixed for 'Friday.