The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-27 00:00:00

( PRICE 7D.)

')een during the year 928 outrages, some of them of an in-
•urrec:ionary character. There were 28 commitments for

the al!eged crime of murder, but in all the latter cases no
'egal evidence could be procured, and the men were all dis-
•harged ; 40 were sentenced to transportation, and the H-
alt:tinder were not tried at all, from the difficulty of pro-
procuring sufficient evidence. Most of the witnesses

roughs forward were of the police, but before they gave
,heir evidence, Government was obliged to contract with
-hem to provide for them and their families, by sending
hem abroad, where they would be out of the way of those
.rho might visit on them the usual con,equences of having
seen instrumental to a conviction. At the late assizes

many of the jurors did not attend, though several of

lien-1
were called on fines of 501. and 601.

Thi• would

ilmtv the state of the country, and from these causes a

large ❑umber of men, amounting to nearly 900, were

. -
thrown at large upon the public, without trial, though
accused of very serious offences ; and by a clause which
had been added to the Coercion Bill in the House of
Oommons, they could not be tried under that Act. Yet
this was the time which the Government tied selected to
new model the jury laws, and they thought that when
they had made those changes they had provided suffi-
ciently for the due administration of the law and of
justice in the country. But the time of bringing forward
this measure was ■ot his only objection to it.—he had
strong objections to it under any circumstances. In the
first place, the Judges of Ireland bad almost unanimously
objected to the measure.—(Hear.) He had seen a letter
signed by them, in which they stated that they objected to
the lists, and would rather rest on the re.ponsibility of
the sheriffs' returns. Another objection which he had to
the Bill was, that it reduced the qualification for jurors
far below that of England, whereas he would show that
it ought to be much higher. The qualification in England
was 101. a year property, or 201. on a lease, or a man being
a householder of a house rated at 30/., or an occupier of
a house with 15 windows. In Ireland the qualification
was being a 10/. freeholder, or having 151. a year on
tease. Now, he would ask why was the 151. leaseholder
in Ireland to be considered equal to the 201. laseholder in
England ? Was it not known that persons of the former
class were men in the humblest walks of life--generally
under the dominion of their priests, and in other respects
on whose loyalty no great reliance could he placed ? Would
such men be fitted to discharge impartially the functions
of jurors ? Why not give the duty to those in a more
elevated sphere in life, on whom they could place a much
greater reliance? What had happened a short time ago in
the Queen's county (as we understood) , would be an
illustration of what be meant.—(Hear.) At the assizes
for that county, a sufficient number of the common
jurors had not answered to their names. The gentlemen
of the county, to whose public spirit on every occasion
too much praise could not be given, who were in attend
ance, and had not been on the grand jury, offered them-

selves as jurors, and they discharged these duties in a man•
ner which was found most just and most serviceable to the
due administration of the law. This would abundantly
show that if the qualifications of jurors were raised so as
to bring in only men in the higher classes, there would be
no complaint against the want of a due administration of
justice. It would be admitted that there was no country
which required more attention in guarding the rights of
property than the kingdom of Ireland. He did not want
to exaggerate the general impression on this subject, but
he would ask what was the cause of the great misery
which prevailed in Ireland? It was, he would contend,
the general insecurity of property in that country. Give to
Ireland a better description of jurors, and you remove one
great cause of that evil. It was not only the duty, but
also the interest, of this country to relieve Ireland from
rioters and riotous proceedings. No country possessed
greater local advantages than she did. Her ports, bays, and
rivers, gave every facility for commerce ; her soil was rich;
and she had a population, generally disposed to industry,
of not less than 8,000,000 ; yet, with all these advan-
tages, she was rather a burthen than a relief to this country,
fur she did not contribute one-third to the exigencies of
the state, which she might do if her resources were pro-
perly brought forth, and if a system were firmly esta-
blished which would effectually secure the rights of pro-
perty, and do justice between man and man. He was not
disposed to oppose the third reading of the Bill, but he
would move an amendment, to make the 11th clause of
the Bill more clear. To that clause there was a proviso,
which said, " Provided always, that nothing herein con-
tained shall prevent any returning officer from the exercise
of his discretion in making returns the same as he had
been accustomed to do under former laws ;" but those
laws were repealed by the Bill itself. Now, he would
propose a proviso to this affect, " Provided always, that
the sheriff or sub-sheriff, or other returning officer, shall
be bound to insert all such names as are not suspected
persons or persons procured."
The LORD CHANCELLOR here suggested that the
amendment could not be put until after the third reading.
The better way would be to discuss the amendment now,
and let it he put after the third reading.
The Duke of WELLINGTON acquiesced.
Viscount MELBOURNE said it was perfectly true
that riots and outrages in Ireland had rendered it necessary
to empower the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to suspend the
trial by jury in some parts of Ireland; but he could not
see why that should prevent the Government from endea-
vouring to give those improvements to the jury system in
other parts of the country of which it was capable. This
was a proof, if any were required, that it was not the in-
tention of his Maj-sty's Ministers to prolong the duration
of the coercion bill beyond the time when it might be ab-
solutely necessary—that they were thus endeavouring to
improve the jury system generally. The circumstances
which had taken place in the county of Kilkenny had, in
his opinion, nothing to do with the question before the
house. There was nothing new in the existence of such
events from the very earliest period in which she had been
subjected to English laws. As to the objection made to
the bill by the judges in Ireland, the Noble Duke had
greatly overstated the fact. The judges had objected
to the lists, but they approved of the qualification.
They thought the amount of property was sufficient. He
(Lord Melbourne) had, i: was true, read some charges de-
livered by some of the Irish judges, of great talent and
eminence, to grand juries, and in these they stated ob-
jections to the measure which were, to say the least of
them, not at all consistent with their previous signatures
in approbation of the measure. They approved of the re-
sponsibility of the sheriff, but that responsibility would be
left untouched, except that he was bound to take bis lists
of jurors from the jurors' book. The Noble Duke had
appealed to the outrages which took place in Ireland, and
to the natural advantages which that country possessed,
which, if well applied, would make her an aid instead of
being u burden to this country ; but the Noble Duke must
know that in the history '4 nations more than one instance
could be found of countries possessing great local adven-
t iges, but at the same time sunk to the lowest depths of
misery and disgrace. Ho would not then enter into
the question of the causes of the present distressed
condition of Ireland ; but he thought that many of them
might be traced to the violence with which the laws and
religion of England hod been attempted to be forced on that
country without any preparation of the minds of the people
for them. One remedy would be found in a mild and im •
partial administration of the law. The only way to recon-
cile the people to the authority of the law was, by sharing
it amongst them. That would be done by that part of
the Bill which related to the qualification of jurors. The
qualifications were lower than those in England ; but they
hail be, n raised, rather than lowered, by the Bill. It did
not follow that, because they passed a low in England, they
should necessarily pass a similar law applicable to Ireland ;
bur, if they improved their system uf the administration of
the laws in one country, he did not see why they should
not make a similar improvement in the other. This was ex-
pected by the people of Ireland. It was generally consi-
dered in Ireland that the present system of juries
in Ireland was highly defective, and an improvement
was recommended by the commissioners of judicial
inquiry ; it was promised by the Government, anti
it was expected too by the people ; and, though it
was not a necessary consequence that a law must be passed
in every else because the people expected it, yet he hoped
that in a any measure of so general a nature as this, the
I,elinge and wishes of the people would not be overlooked.
Under all these circumstances, he did hope theirLerdshipe
would eonsent to pass the bill. As to the proviso to which
the Noble Duke hid alluded, he would admit that it was
copied from the Euglish Bill, and was an oversight in that
Bill. It was one to which, if the question of the passing
of the Bill were allowed to stand over till Monda.,, he
would endeavour to apply a remedy consistent with di,
proviso moved by the Noble Duke.
The Bill was then read a third time, and the question
ti at it do pass was put off m Mondty.--eeveral Bills were
then advanced a stage, after wbich the House adjourned,