The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-21 00:00:00

JURIES IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.

Sir C. O'LOUGHLEN moved the second reading of his
bill, which was meant to remedy soma of the great incon-
veniences which at present existed in the jury laws. Ms
bill had nothing to do with cases already decided ; it re-
lated to the keeping of juries, and to tho discharge of juries.
Now, for his part, ho could not see why any difference
should be made between juries summoned in misdemean-
our cases and those called together to dispose of felony
cases. The jury in misdemeanour were allowed to go to
their homes, supposing the case lasted over the day, and
he thought it unjust that juries in felony cases should not
be allowed the same privilege. That matter had been
dealt with in his bill ; and another hardship, which had
long been complained of he had attempted to deal with.
Where it became necessary to lock up a jury for
the night, his bill directed that they should be taken to au
hotel and be supplied with beds, instead of continuing
the inhuman practice of locking them up in the court-
house, the judge by the present law having no power to
direct their removal to an hotel. Ho also proposed that
the judge should have the power of ordering jurors re-
freshment. The bill laid down most distinctly that the
judge should not have the power of discharging juries ex-
cept in the several instances specified in the bill, and then
followed the directions with respect to juries, in cases of
illness either of the judge, the witness, or the accused.
The measure would prevent a repetition of the scandal
that had occurred in Charlotte Winsor's case, as it
directed that the judge should have the power of dis-
charging the jury after they have been kept in confinement
a reasonable time, which time he (the judge) shall decide,
and from his decision there should be no appeal. (Hear.)
He begged attention to the 13th clause of the bill, by
which it was distinctly enacted that it should be legal on
the part of a jury to return a verdict on Sundays. (Hear.)
He hoped the house would allow the bill to be read a
second time, when any amendments hon. members might
think it advisable to make could be settled in committee.

Mr. NEAT T supported the second reading of the bill.
He thought it was a very good bill, and calculated to
remedy an evil in the present state of the law which had
toe long existed.
Mr. S. B. MILLER objected to many of the provisions
of the bill as altogether unnecessary.
Mr. WATKINS thought the bill ought to bo allowed to
go to a committee, because, in his opinion, the hon. mem-
ber had made out a complete case, showing the necessity
that existed for an alteration in the law with respect to the
locking up and discharging of juries. . .

Mr. G. HARDY said he had no objection to that part of
the bill giving the judge power to order the jury refresh-
ment. He, however, did not think it would be wise in the
house to pledge itself to the proposal in the bill with re-
spect to the discharge of juries until the case of Charlotte
Winsor had been decided in the Exchequer Chambers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said ho should not have
opposed the measure if the hon. baronet had confined it to
the giving of rofeeshments to jurors after they had retired
to consider their verdict. With respect to the provisions
relative to the discharge of jurors, ho could not give his
assent to the measure now before she house. The
case of Charlotte Windsor had been alluded to dur-
ing the discussion on the bill, but if the Exchequer
Chamber, in the case about to bo submitted to it, con-
firmed the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench,
the law with respect to juries will be settled as
clearly as it could possibly be. He thought the bill, at
present at all events, ought not to be allowed to proceed.
Ho did not think, in nine cases out of ten, the verdict
would be satisfactory to the public, if the jury were to be
allowed to separate during the trial, and before giving
their verdict. If his hon. and learned friend would limit
the object of his bill to giving refreshment to juries he
would not oppose it, but if the other provisions wore
passed then he should feel it his duty to object to its second
reading.

The hon. and learned gentleman then postponed the mo-
tion for the second reading of the bill until the 18th of
April.

TELEGRAPHS (ILELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The house then adjourned.

MARKETS,--This Day.