The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-03 00:00:00

IRISH JURY BILL.

Lord PLUNKET moved the .Leond reading of this
Bill.

Lord CARBERY said, in his opinion the whole in-
tended effect of the 13,11 was to be found in the first clause,
by which men who had a certain amount of rent in the
country—for instance, 151., were to be put upon the jury
list. Why, many of these persons could not read the issue
they would have to try, and many of them were even
ignorant of the English language, yet their names were to
be put into the book, and the judges would have no
power of objecting to them. If this Bill were to pass
into a law, he was convincea that there would be an end
of justice, and of the security of the subject. The law
would he liable to be abused by a bad or a corrupt sheriff.
The Ea! of WICKLOW thought it would be better
to continue the present system than to adopt that how
proposed. It was said, as a reason fur introducing this
Bill, that the present system did nut work well. That
wee a most manifest error. Let them consult the twelve

judges on that point. They desired no change, but
merely said, that if this Bill was to pass; certain altera-
tions which they mentioned ought to be made, but they
thought it not desirable to alter the law. This proposed
chance did not come from the Commissioners appo,nted
to inquire into the state of the country ; for, let their
Lordships look at the fifteen reports of those Commis-
' sioners, and they would find that, although the state of
the jury law in England vas there alluded to, they did not
recommend that the same law should be introduced into
Ireland. It came in fact from a certain individual who
had obtained an undue ascendancy, and it could be looked
upon in no other light than is a new ingredient in the
sop to Cerherus. Their Lordships had not a choice whether
they could reject this Bill—such an alternative was
not left them: because the Government was pledged—
most unadvisedly, as he thought—to this measure. It
was therefore impossible that they should reject it. S•tll
he acknowledged, that when compared with the last Bill
on that subject which hail been before their Lordships,
it was decidedly of an improved character, though those
improvements were not so great as their Lordships were
led to believe they would have been. He willingly ad-
mitted that it was devoid of many of the objections which
were observable in the other Bill—that in regard to special
juries, it adopted the suggestions of the judges—but its
main faults still remained. The jury book must he had from
a class he cool i not approve. Such a host of persons were
admitted—such a crowd of individuals as would disgrace
any court of justice, and he sincerely hoped that this would
he corrected in the Committee. Their Lordships must all
know that it Was a total deviation from the constitution to
make a money qualification the sole qualification for these
important duties. The sheriff's oath, too, bare stronely
upon this point; aril without its repeal he did not see
how they could pass this Bill.
Lord WYNFORD said their Lordships were now asked
to pass this Bill, which gave to popular feeling a greater
sway, and a stronger power than it had ever berme been
allowed to assume. He should endeavour to prevent his
Noble Friend, who spoke I ist, from proposing any amend-
ments in the Committee, for he looked upon the principle
of the Bill as so bad, that he should move the House to
reject it altogether. He greatly blamed the Government
in this matter. There was no consistency in their pro-
ceedings in thus bringing forward a coercive Bill to cor-
rect and Centro] popular feeling, and a Jury Bill to give
energy and force to it. Surely they might have stated some
good that was to be wrom.ht by this Bill—some mischief
which required a departure from the principle of the esta-
blish d jury laws in Ireland. Why was the duty which had
hitherto devolved upon the sheriff taken from him by this
enactment? Could any man state that? What had been their
faults—where were their errors ? They were called upon to
pass an imputation on every man in Ireland, because there
was a movement of some kind or other in Dublin.
Their Lordships ought to maintain some proportion he.
tween the proposed enactment and its object. Now, as to
special juries, he took the Bill itself as sufficient evidence
that there was not a sufficient class in Ireland from which
to form them as there provided; and that they would
have to betake themselves to the common jury list. It
might, therefore, happen, that though a person ought to
be tried by a special jury, he might, nevertheless, he in
fact tried by a commen jury. The object of the Bill was
to assimilate the Irish to the English system of trial by
jury. Objecting as he (lid to the principle of the measure,
be would move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defended the prin-
ple of the Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was quite sure that the
Noble and Learned Lord was anxious for the fair admi-
nistration of justice, and that he would acquiesce in any
amendment that would improve the operation of the Bill,
and more especially that would show the animus with
which it was passed ; for it appeared tell him that there
was not so much danger from the actual provisions of the
Bill as from a misinterpretation of the motives of those
provisions. What he dreaded was, the inference that
would be drawn from the enactments, rather than the
enactments themselves ; if the Bill were passed in quiet
times, it might lie attended with no inconvenience ; but,
being passed in very unquiet times, he feared its effects
might be injurious. What was the ground-work of the
Bill? Had any complaint been made of the recent prac-
tice with respect to the empaunelling of juries in Ire-
land? So far from that, the juries there had conducted
themselves in a manner to excite astonishment, and had
given more courageous and better verdicts than could have
been expected. And why ? In consequence of the man-
ner in which the sheriffs had exercised their functions.
The Noble Lord here referred to the evidence which
was given before a Committee of the Lords on that sub-
ject, in order to prove the good composition of juries
in Ireland. It was very rarely that be differed from
his Noble and Learned Friend behind him ; but he
doubted whether his Noble end Learned Friend was right
in supposing that the Bill origin .ted with Mr. O'Connell ;
because he held in his hand evidence given on oath by that
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, of a contrary tendency.
The Noble Lord here read the evidence in question, from
which he deduced the inference, that even now the
sheriffs in Ireland were met enabled to select a sufficient
number of proper persons for special juries. And yet,
the object of the Bill was to bring inferior persons into
special juries instead of superior persons, which were
required. lie was quite aware, however, that his
Alejesty's Ministers were committed to the Bill; and he
regretted it, because lie could see no reason for the measure.
The Earl of RODEN wished to state the ground upon
which, in addition to the grounds stated by the Noble
Friends near him, he opposed the Bill, which he considered
a most dangerous tmasure. That ground was, that the
present judges of Ireland were unanimously opposed to
the soul of the measure—namely, the jorixs' book. He
deeply regretted that the Noble and Learned Lord had
brought it forward. There was no good reason why any
change should be made in the present mode of striking
juries in Ireland. But as his Noble and Learn. d Friend
near him had observed, it was a sop given to Cerherus.
It was for the purpose of redeeming an unfortunate pledgeb
although at a risk of the lives and property of his Majesty's
loyal subjects in Ireland.

Lord PLUNKET, in reference to the expression
which the Noble Lord who had just sat down had re-
peated, after the Noble and Learned Lord opposite—
namely,m-
m,if at a t hi
oa,ts tthoe
kßn iol
wl wtahse a
ms
eoapn
it
no
gCoefr Cerberus, se,
xdpercel
sasrieodn i
he were compelled to guess who was meant by Cerberus,
he should say that he supposed Mr. O'Connell. Whether
Alt. 0 Connell would be a proper guardian for the place
of which Cerberus was the keeper, it was for the Noble
Lords to say ; but he (Lord Plunket) had not introduced
the name of Mr. O'Connell. Too much stress had been
laid on the name of that gentleman. He (Lord Plunket)
was not to be induced to bring in a Bill because Mr.
O'Connell approved of it, or to be diverted from bring-
ing in a Bid because Mr. O'Connell disapproved of it.
All that he asked himself was, if the measure was a fair
and a proper one. But there never was a more wild and
ridiculous supposition, than that the present Bill origi-
nated from any suggestion of Mr. O'Connell. It was
founded on the measure introduced by Sir Robert Peel,
who certainly was not very likely to act in concert with
Mr. O'Connell. If this were a Bill intented to conciliate
Mr. O'Connell, he (Lord Plunket), found himself in
good comp tny in proposing it, for is was not his 13-11
alone; It was likewise the Bill of the Right lion. Gentleman
who lately held the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland,
and of the Solicitor-General of Ireland, as well as of Sir
Robert Peel. It was not a measure founded on any new
principles ; it was founded on practical knowledge, for the
greatest part of it had already been adopted in England.
The Noble Baron bad taunted them with wishing to assi-
milate the laws of Ireland to those of England. Did the
Noble Lord mean to say that it was not right to do so?—
(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Plunket) did nut mean to say
that a difference ought not to be made in the laws, ac-
cording to the habits of the country for which they were
intended. He allowed it, and, acting upon that principle,
had made such altemions as he thought necessary, in
order to suit the laws in force on the subject in England
to the state of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) And would the
Noble Lord say that it was improper thus to assimilate the
laws of the two countries? For his part, he would con-
sider that it would not only be absurd, but dangerous, to
act On a contrary principle. He regretted that Noble Lords,
in discussing the measure, had not confined themselves to
the consideration of the question before them, but had
wandered from it in order to make unnecessary attacks on
the Government It had been said that this was an im-
proper time for the introduction of such a measure; that
it was not at the very time when they had passed a Coer-
cive Bili which might abolish trials by jury in Ireland,
they should bring in a Bill for the regulation of juries.
lie could not agree with the Noble Lord who had made
that assertion. He thought that there could not be a more
appropriate time to introduce a measure for the improve-
ment of the administration of justice in Irelaud, than at
the time when it was found necessary to employ harsh
measures for the suppression of the disturbances. It would
show the people of Ireland that the Government, while
they were ready to adopt 'effectual means fur the suppres-
sion of those disturbances, were likewise ready to improve
the course of justice. It was by a gradual succession of
such improvements that they could get free of that terrible
law, and relieve the people from its operation. The Noble
Lord had said that the present measure would destroy the
sharacter of jurors. Was the Noble Lord aware of the
qualification whichentitle f i itt irt to be a juror as the law

at present stands ? What did their Lordships think wq'
the qualification? From the manner in which the Nehl
Lord had expressed himself, they must think that the
' qualification could not be less than 100/ at the very least.
No ; the qualification was, that the claimant should he in
possession of a 40s. freehold. And the only difference made
by the present Bill was, that the persons qualified instead
of being, as formerly, forty. shilling freeholders, should
be 15/. leaseholders : a change which he hoped flair Lord-
ships would consider an improvement. The Noble Lord
had likewise said, that the change in the qualification of
the jurors was nettle in opposition to the opinion of the
judges. Now the fact was directly the reverse; for they
had, in direct terms, a; proved of the contemplated change
in the qualification. He, therefore, thought that he hid
a right to complain that the Noble Baron should have
stated that he had brought forward that measure in oppo-
sition to the opinions of the judges.-Hear, hear.) He
had a great respect for the great learning and experience
of the judgis of Ireland ; but he could not allow that they
Were n.t to legislate on the laws of that county without
their consent—(Hear hear)—or even in opposition to
tleir opinions. That, however, was not the case in the
present instance, for they did approve of the measure.
He denied another assertion made by the Noble Baron—
namely, that that Bill had been formerly rejected by
the ll,use when brought before them. That was not
the case. The Bill had been referred to a Select
Committee of the House ; but before the Com-
mittee could make any report the House ad-
journed, and sets soon afterwards dissolved, by which
all the previous proceedings taken fell to the ground.
He now came to the main objection stated by the Noble
Lord. The Noble Lord objected to the clause which
took from the sheriff, who is the sworn officer of ,h
Crown, the privilege of choosing jurors, which, as the law
at present stands, he had. And he stated very justly and
propedy, that the amount of property was not the propel
criterion by which tin judge of the qualifications of a man
for that duty. He (Lord P.unket) did not deny that
there was some difficulty in th it part of the measure, and
he had taken considerable pains to consider it; and he
would then state bow he hoped to overcome the objection.
By the Bill before them, the barony collectors were to
make returns of the names of all /persona witWn their
district who were, by right of property, qualified to sit as
jurors. In England that duty was performed by the
overseers of the poor, but there being no overseers
of the poor in Irel and, he could not follow that
part of Sir R. Peel's Bill. The returns were to be made
by the collectors, to the clerk of the peace, and the
justices were empowered at the quarter-sessions to
strike out the names of all improper persons, and to add
the names of such as were entitled to have their names
inserted. There was also a clause inserted, which spe-
ciaily reserved to the sheriffs all the jurisdiction which
they had as the law at present stood. He (Lord Plunker)
thought that the Noble Baron would more readily approve
of that part of the Bill, when he was told that it was
adopted on the suggestion of the twelve judges. lie
would add, that he meant, if the Bill went into Com-
mittee, to add a clause, by which retailers might be added
to the list of special jurors, if they proved that they were
in possession of the sum of 5,000/. The Noble Lord con-
cluded by saying, that so far from considering it impro-
per to introduce the Bill, on account of the Bill which
had lately passed that House, it was the very reason why
it should be adopted.
Lord WYNFORM and Lord PLuNKET mutually ex-
plained.
After which, Lord Wynford's amendment was nega-
tived without a division.—The Bill was then read a
second time, and was ordered to be committed to-mor-
row (this day).
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Ciitheroe, tor the prevention of Sunday trading, which
he said had no reference to the Bill on the same subject
before the other House.—Laid on the table.
The House adjourned at nine o'cl,ek.