§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ (3.20.) MR. KILBRIDE (Kerry, S.)This Bill deals with a subject to which the attention of the House has often been directed in various ways. It has often been alleged that Irish people have no respect for law and order, and the pur- 908 pose of this Bill, shortly stated, is to induce that respect for Jury Law which at present the people do not entertain. The Attorney General for Ireland will, no doubt, be anxious to explain the action of his predecessor in office in relation to a, celebrated trial last October in my native county; so, without dilating at length on the provisions of the Bill, I will merely allude to that trial by way of illustration, and shortly state that the object of the Bill is to give prisoners in Ireland that chance of fair play which, owing to the action of the Crown prosecutors, they do not now enjoy. By a practice unknown in this country, a very large number of special jurors are summoned for the trial of political prisoners, and thus, at Mary borough, 217 men were summoned as jurors for the trials I have mentioned, all men rated at over £100, and of these 217 only 66 were Catholics or Nationalists, or supposed to have any sympathy with the persons on trial. It is because we object to have the law brought into contempt by its administration that we introduce this Bill. We wish the people to have confidence in the administration of the law. We have as much respect for law and order, fairly administered, as any hon. Member on the other side, but I think no hon. Member can justify the action taken at the trial of the Gweedore prisoners at Maryborough, where the whole of the special jury panel were summoned, and any person who was suspected of any sympathy in politics or religion with the people on trial was ordered to stand by. The jury did not contain one single person in the same condition in life as these Donegal prisoners. Such circumstances as these bring the law into contempt, at only in Donegal but all over Ireland. How can any Catholic have any respect for the law so long as his creed is considered a disqualification for serving on a jury, and he is subjected to what is an insult in open Court? The Bill, I hope, will be read a second time, and I know the effect of carrying it into law will do much to make the law respected, and will do much to strengthen the union between the English and Irish people, which we have as much at heart as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who call themselves Unionists.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Kilbride.)
(3.24.) MR. M. HEALT (Cork)In seconding the Motion, I would point out that the Bill is only a return to the ancient Constitutional practice prevailing both in England and Ireland. In the famous Magna Charta it was declared that a person arraigned on a criminal charge should be tried by a jury "indifferently chosen," and this is the law which nominally is supposed to prevail in this country and in Ireland. It was found at one time that the Crown had succeeded in evading the law by exercising an unlimited right of challenge, and accordingly, some 500 or 600 years ago, Parliament solemnly enacted that the Crown should have no right of challenging a juryman except for cause shown, but this Act the Crown evades by exercising the right to order a person to stand by. Nominally, the Crown prosecutors do not challenge jurors, but really they do by calling on jurors to stand by. They exercise this right of "stand a side" to an extraordinary extent by summoning a whole panel, and I have known the summons extend to 300 persons. In cases of misdemeanour a prisoner has six challenges, in cases of felony, 20; but the Crown has practically unlimited challenge in both; so that instead of the trial being conducted before 12 jurymen indifferently chosen, persons appear before 12 jurymen selected by the Crown. We are solicitous to put an end to this state of things, and hence we support the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ (3.26.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin UniversityThe hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill seemed to be under the impression when he sat down that I would rise to defend the administration of the law in Ireland from charges he did not make against it. Now, I do not think any Member of the House would expect that anybody charged to any extent with the administration of the law in Ireland would get up and evolve charges from his inner consciousness for the purpose of demolishing them. If the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the 910 Motion for the Second Reading have not thought fit to formulate charges in detail it is certainly impossible for me to imagine them. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading did make allusion to a specific trial, and both hon. Gentlemen made allusion to a practice which they said is largely exercised. The hon. Member alluded to recent trials in a county with which I understand he is connected, trials at Maryborough. It was a vague and general statement, and, before referring to it, I should like to read to the House the statement of an eminent member of the English Bar who attended these trials for purposes of observation simply; and I take the opportunity of saying I wish other members of the English Bar, who have any doubts as to the manner in which the law is administered in Ireland, would follow the course that Mr. Crompton adopted. [An hon. MEMBER: He denies it.] I will read what Mr. Crompton said. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Irish Protestant Home Rule Association, held in Dublin, on the 22nd of October, 1889, Mr. Crompton said:—
He had attended the trial at Maryborough,"—(it was the case of Father M'Fadden and others)—"this week, and he must say he did not complain of the way justice was administered by the learned Judge, or of the way in which the Protestant jurors acted. So far as the Judge was concerned, he (Mr. Crompton) had attended thousands of trials, and he never heard a criminal trial conducted more admirably, or with greater power, ability, and fairness, than this trial was conducted by Mr. Justice Gibson. He thought he was an honour to the Irish Bench and the Irish nation, and the only regret was that Mr. Justice Gibson did not join the Protestant Home Rule Association. The jury appeared to have done their duty fairly, and to have brought in a verdict of guilty because they considered there were extenuating circumstances connected with the arrest of Father M'Fadden which exasperated the people, and, in the eloquent words of the Mac Dermot, 'made them mad.'An hon. Gentleman interrupted me by saying that Mr. Crompton afterwards denied, or modified or qualified that statement. He did nothing of the kind. I know the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He did not deny or qualify his testimony as to the conduct of the Judge and jury, but said he made some general charges in relation to jury packing. [Cheers.] I know the charges. 911 There are two distinct classes of charges that may be made. You may make a charge against a certain system, and you may go further, and say that system produces practical injustice. I deny the existence of the system as alleged by hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"}—and before I sit down, I shall read testimony, which, I think, will have weight with hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member who moved the Second Beading of the Bill said that no Catholic could have respect for the law, because his religion was used as a means of insulting him in Courts of Justice. I give the most categorical denial to the suggestion underlying that statement. No person is ordered to stand by in Ireland on account of his religion. This is not the first time this House has heard accusations of this kind, and this is not the first Government against which accusations of this kind have been made. Similar charges were made against the Administration of Lord Spencer, but what has Lord Spencer himself said? I should not think of producing Lord Spencer as a witness if the speech from which I desire to quote were one delivered by him during the time he was administering the law of Ireland with firmness and with success. But the speech from which I am about to make an extract was made in other days, and I presume that, in his present state of mind, Lord Spencer will be accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a credible witness, particularly in a matter in his own personal knowledge. Speaking at the Eighty Club, on the 8th of March, 1889, Lord Spencer referred to the complaints of the prevalence of the practice called jury packing which were made while he was responsible for the Government of Ireland. He said—We thought we had done away with the cry in Ireland, this painful cry of packing juries; hut I was quite mistaken. I found in my experience later in Ireland that when there were cases of agrarian or political moment which created much excitement among people the cry was again raised, and I will just explain how it came about. Some of you may not agree with me. You may think that I am not giving a proper version of affairs, but what happened was this—I speak of Dublin, and I do not know so much about the rest of the country—[Ironical Opposition cheers.] Yes, but complaints were made in relation 912 to Dublin, and if the allegation is found, on the testimony of Lord Spencer, to be utterly untrue in relation to Dublin I ask you to draw the same inference in respect to the rest of the country. Lord Spencer continued—In Dublin the Law Officers of the Crown, when the panel of jurors was called over, considered whether there were any publicans on the panel or farmers who lived in isolated districts. I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say it is the duty of the law officers to see that no absolutely partial person is on the jury. The Grown had a right to set aside peremptorily or for cause, and the prisoners to challenge a certain number of jurors. I believe the law officer would not be doing his duty if he knowingly left on the jury a man whom he knew would give a verdict independent of the facts. It was the habit to challenge these two classes, and the reason was that the publicans were put in such an invidious position with their customers, if they went against the feeling of their customers, and did their duty. The same thing occurred with regard to the farmers in any district. What was the result? I know, because I have cross-examined the officers on the subject, and I know these men did not challenge because a man was a Roman Catholic. I am satisfied that the law officers did not challenge and set men aside because they were Roman Catholics; but the result was that, as these two classes were invariably Roman Catholics, we constantly had juries in Roman Catholic districts almost wholly made up of Protestants.[Ironical cheers.] Do hon. Gentlemen believe Lord Spencer of 1889 or not They are not derisively cheering any statement of mine, but a statement Lord Spencer, as to what occurred when he was Governor of Ireland, in regard to matters which must have been within his own knowledge. He says he was satisfied, from inquiries made at the time, that no person was challenged because of his religion. I do not think more important testimony on the subject could possibly be adduced. Let me remind the House that the accusation of jury packing was made just as strongly and vigorously in the time of the late Government, and in the House of Commons, on the 26th of February, 1883, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) said—He was able to give, from his own personal experience, the most complete contradiction to-one of the assertions made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member had said that since the Crimes Act was passed, juries in Ireland could not be trusted to exercise judicial impartiality—that trial by jury did not exist, by which he (Mr. Osborne 913 Morgan) supposed was meant that juries empanelled under the Crimes Act, could not be trusted to do their duty.Then he went on to pass a eulogy upon Mr. Justice Lawson, who presided at the trial of Michael Walsh, and added —But he did not wish to say a word about the jury. He went into Court as an entirely unprejudiced spectator. He did not know what proportion of the jury was Protestant and what was Catholic; but he desired to say, having had some experience, both favourable and unfavourable, of juries in this country, that never in the whole course of his life had he beheld a more intelligent, a more patient, or a more impartial jury, and he thought he might add, a jury more indulgent to the prisoner. Every single question they put was directly to the point, and, as he could judge, most of their questions were directed to elicit some point in favour of the prisoner. He could say emphatically that no man could have had fairer trial, and at the conclusion of it he could not help saying that if that was the way they packed juries in Ireland, he only wished they would pack English juries in the same way."—[Hansard, vol. 276, p. 892.)That is the testimony of a right hon. Gentleman who supports the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and who sits on the Front Opposition Bench. Now, I have been asked several times if I would lay on the Table of the House the rule under which the Crown Solicitor in Ireland acts as regards the empanelling of juries. I am prepared to lay the rule on the Table, and I will now read it. I would first of all remind hon. Members that it is no new rule invented for a novel occasion, but a rule that has been substantially in force since 1867. The rule provides for the exclusion from the jury box of those who, from their position or circumstances, would be open to be influenced by fear, favour, or affection. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) said this Bill would have the effect of bringing the law back to the ancient Constitutional practice in England and Ireland, and the hon. Member for South Kerry (Mr. Kilbride) said that such things as he complained of could not take place in England. I do not know whether the House is aware that the law is precisely the same in England as in Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: "No."] An hon. Member says "No," but let him show any statute creating the smallest difference. Having due regard to my position as a lawyer, I state that the law 914 in England in relation to the right of the Crown to order jurors to stand by is identical with the law in Ireland on the subject. This Bill will take away the right of the Crown to order jurors to stand by in Ireland.
§ MR. O'HANLONOh, oh!
§ *MR. SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Gentleman not to interrupt constantly.
§ MR. MADDENRoscoe in his Criminal Law says that this practice of ordering jurors to stand by has existed uniformly from the time of Edward I. to the present time.
§ MR. MADDENMy statement was that the law in England and Ireland is the same, and if the hon. Member merely rises to show that that is the case, his interruption is hardly necessary. He has referred me to a publication which, he says, states that the law in question in England is either obsolete or disused. Well, let us see what the Bill does, and clear our ideas. It is not a measure to bring the law of Ireland into line with the law of England. It will do exactly the opposite of that, the law of England and Ireland being precisely the same as to the rights of the Crown in respect of challenge, and I have, I think, gone far enough to throw the burden of proof on the shoulders of those who wish to establish a different system in Ireland. I have the authority of my Colleague (the Attorney General for England) in saying that any such statement would be unfounded. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading, and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, cannot be said to have discharged themselves of the burden of proof, the conjoint duration of their united oratorical efforts having been about eight minutes. It may be right to alter the Jury Law of Ireland, of it may be wrong, but, certainly, we should not adopt a suggestion for alteration unless it is supported by some show of argument. The law and practice are that the Crown Solicitor shall exclude from the jury those likely to be influenced by fear, favour, or affection, and when it is said that there is greater reason why the right of challenge should be limited in Ireland than in England, I would point out that 915 there are, unfortunately, more classes of persons in Ireland who are likely to be influenced by fear of combinations, by favour, and by affection, than there are in England. I have had many interruptions during my speech, but I do not complain of them. I am always anxious to meet, as fairly and as far as I can, any argument brought forward from the opposite side of the House, and I always like to know what are the points hon. Members wish me to deal with before I sit down and exhaust my right to speak. But if the interruptions which have come from hon. Gentlemen opposite could be counted by the clock, I feel sure they would be found to have occupied quite as much time as the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and perhaps to have been more to the point. With regard to these interruptions, I may remark this: It is said that the law may be the same in England and Ireland, but that the practice by which it is worked is different. Well, that is a question of fact as to which the House should not be influenced by any opinion of mine, and I have ventured to submit the testimony of two learned Queen's counsel on the point. I read part of a speech of Mr. Crompton, and I also quoted the hon. Member for Denbigh—and theirs is testimony the force of which hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think, will admit. I also read to the House the speech of Earl Spencer, who was responsible for governing Ireland, and he gave the result of his own inquiries into the working of the system. I think Earl Spencer's testimony overbalances the assertions which have been made by hon. Members opposite. I met with a passage in a speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, which, I think, is significant on this point. The hon. and learned Member was speaking to a meeting in County Wicklow, in October, 1888, and, according to a report which appeared in the Freeman's Journal, was denouncing what he called jury packing, and complained that every good Catholic was insulted by being told to stand aside as being unfit to serve as a juryman, and he was interrupted by one of his audience calling out, "And every good Protestant too." Now what did his audience understand? Did they understand that jurymen were directed 916 to stand aside on account of religious belief? [An hon. MEMBER: Certainly.] But what did the interruption mean when the hon. Member was referring to the complaint of Catholics, did it not mean that objection was made to both Catholics and Protestants? What did it mean? [An. hon. MEMBER: "Packing."] I should rather call it "unpacking," unpacking from the jury all those likely to be unduly influenced in the discharge of their duty as jurors. The power of the Crown has been exercised, and I trust will continue to be exercised, to exclude from the jury all those who, irrespective of creed or politics, would, from their position, be likely to be influenced in their verdict by fear, favour, or affection.
§ (4.0.) DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems very ingeniously to have avoided the whole point of the question. It is not a question whether the rules and directions given to the officers of the Crown are observed; it is a question whether jury packing exists or not; it is a question whether, instead of a system keeping out of a jury those influenced by fear, favour, or affection, you put into the jury box those who are influenced by interest, hatred, and antipathy towards the prisoner. This is the accusation made against the Government of Ireland; it is not an accusation of yesterday, it is an old accusation; numbers of unfortunate people are obliged to run the gauntlet of this system, and the same stereotyped excuse is always given. I am thankful that we have not heard one excuse; we have heard hundreds of times from the other side of the House, that it is simply by chance that a jury all Protestant are selected from a panel upon which half, at least, are Catholics. I have collected a few facts in relation to the doctrine of chances. Take an ordinary panel of 78, upon which the religions are equally divided, and suppose there is no intention of excluding one party, what are the chances against one party being excluded? We know that in certain trials, for instance the Maamtrasna trials, five consecutive juries, on each of which there was not a single Catholic, were selected from a panel where Catholics and Protestants were equally divided. An ingenious friend of mine has calculated the chances against 12 917 Protestants being selected by the ballot in five consecutive juries out of an equally divided panel of 78, and the chances are 110,099 to one.
§ *(4.5.) MR. C. DARLING (Deptford)I think an English Member may be excused for intervening in this Debate, seeing that it is allowed the law in England and Ireland is the same, and only the practice of ordering jurors to stand by differs. That is admitted, and I think it is most objectionable to apply the practice to Ireland alone unless there is something in the condition of Ireland or the condition of prisoners that makes it expedient to have this difference in practice. But experience which would justify the passing1 of this Bill would justify its application to England and Ireland alike. If it is bad to give the Crown the power of ordering jurors to stand aside without cause shown, why then it is bad altogether, and the Bill should apply to both countries. If there is any justification for the Bill, why not give us the grounds upon which you ask us to pass it, and why did not an English Member second it? The purview of the Bill is limited to Ireland because there is a difference of practice there, and, of course, it is obvions why there is that difference. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill gave us no reason why we should pass it; he only said it was the habit of the Crown in Ireland to order Catholics or Protestants to stand aside as the exigencies of the case seemed to require. But, even admitting this practice exists, to my mind that would not in itself be a reason for altering the law. What we want to induce us to make the alteration is, that some proved case of injustice should be brought before the House, not only that Catholics had been tried by Protestants, or Protestants by Catholics. In either case, it does not follow that the trial would not be a fair one; there must be something deeper than this Hon. Members are at no loss in dealing with facts and in acquiring information where information is to be got. Why, if there is any case to which they can point under this or a former Government where a man owing to these religious differences was wrongfully convicted, do they not bring that case before the House? If they do so, I can only say—supporter of the Government as I am —that I will support this Bill. If they 918 bring before the House a case in which it can be plainly and distinctly shown that, owing to the action of the Crown in packing a jury with the political or religious opponents of an accused person that an unjust verdict was obtained, I would not for a moment support the maintenance of this law. [An hon. MEMBER: Joyce.] We have heard pretty well about the Joyce case; and if hon. Members are going to maintain that Joyce was wrongfully convicted, all I can say is they will have to argue their case at much greater length than now appears to suit them, and it will require much more evidence than has yet been brought forward to influence my vote. I know they have charged Lord Spencer with "burying in the grave the proofs of his own guilt," but they have made no attempt to show to the public of England that the conviction and punishment were unjust or unlawfully obtained by Lord Spencer through his legal officers. There are those sitting opposite now who were in office when this miscarriage of justice, if miscarriage of justice it were, occurred. They have had the leisure of opposition to re-consider the case, but I should be surprised if one of them should get up and express the opinion that while they were in office their own colleagues did procure the wrongful conviction of an innocent man in order to get a political opponent out of the way. I should be surprised to find the charge against Lord Spencer and his Law Officers repeated now. But although it is alleged as a reason for bringing in this Bill, that Protestants or Catholics may be ordered to stand aside, I cannot for a moment suppose that the fact of a man being the one or the other is the real reason actuating the Law Officers. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that the fact that so large a proportion of Catholics being ordered to stand aside cannot be the result of mere chance. I should never have thought it was, and nobody who has considered the matter would maintain that. The hon. Member merely set up an argument to demolish it himself. But we know the Catholic is among those to whom the Parish Priest addresses himself, and who are apt to accept his teaching, and we know that what the Parish Priest has told his hearers comes to this: that if they find 919 themselves upon a jury, before whom a co-religionist from the parish is to be tried, it is a duty and obligation upon the juryman to find a verdict for that prisoner, right or wrong. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, unfortunately, we know perfectly well that it has been done. We know that the influence of many among the Catholic Priesthood has been used from the pulpit—[Interruptions.] "It is not true." "It is a lie." "Quote a case."]
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ *MR. C. DARLINGTo impress upon their followers that the law, as administered, is an alien law, that they owe no obligation to it, and that they owe no obligation to the oath taken as a juror. If after this kind of incitement to the Catholic people, an incitement which has not reached Protestants, the majority of those who are directed to stand aside are Catholics, who can wonder at it? [Cries of "It is not true. You dare not repeat that out of doors."] What I dare repeat outside the House is not the question. There are assemblies even more turbulent than this where I should have difficulty in saying what I have said. But what I have said will go forth, and it may be denied by hon. Gentlemen where and when they please, here or elsewhere. We know that among; the Catholic people from whom jurors are drawn a pamphlet has been circulated in which they are told to do exactly that which hon. Gentlemen now suggest that the priests never told the people to do. A certain Nationalist barrister, Dr. Council, wrote a pamphlet before the trial of Father M'Fadden, and we know the contents of that pamphlet. If hon. Gentlemen have not made themselves acquainted with it I may quote an extract, and I may mention that it has also found circulation in the Leinster Leader. Here is a passage—
But the verdict, when given is a judicial act, and in this the jury are absolutely independent and above the authority of the Judge. This I propose to prove by showing that the jury in a criminal case have an unquestionable right to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty
§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)Perfectly true; they have.
§ *MR. C. DARLING—
To find on the law and the facts of the case without regard to the direction and instruction of the Judge.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTHear, hear!
§ *MR. C. DARLINGThe right hon. Gentleman is learned in International Law, and, therefore, he knows both English and Irish Law. Does he mean to assert that the jury have a right to find on the law and the facts of a case without regard to the instruction and direction of the Judge?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTassented.
*MR, C. DARLINGThen why does the Judge sit there and give directions on the question of law if the jury have a perfect right to disregard his directions? Does the right hon. Gentleman know what happens if the jury disregard the directions of the learned Judge on matters of law? The right hon. Gentleman has had some experience at the Parliamentary bar, but has not much acquaintance with the Criminal Law. If he had in practice before a Court occupied a tenth of the time wasted before Committees the right hon. Gentleman would know that when juries disregard the directions of the Judge upon a point of law their verdict will be set aside, and there is no limit to the number of times in which the case may bo set down for trial, until the jury learn what the right hon. Gentleman has not as yet begun to appreciate—that they have no right to disregard the direction of the Judge on a matter of law? For this digression hon. Gentlemen opposite must thank the right hon. Gentleman. Among other things contained in this pamphlet is this, that every juror told to stand aside should protest against the insult to his honesty and intelligence, and should make this protest in such a way that it would be heard, not merely inside the Court, but out of it, and through the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Now it is remarkable that when in cases such as those to which this pamphlet is addressed certain jurors were challenged, they did exactly what the pamphlet told them to do. And not only so, but when a jury had been obtained, such was the intimidation used, such was the spirit among them, such the false and heretical opinions upon matters of law and of fact and of the duty of jurors, that they were unable to agree upon a verdict; and so plain was the case that when the prisoners were afterwards put on their trial they pleaded guilty and admitted that all 921 alleged against them in law and in fact was true. Now I ask hon. Members who do not look on this as a piece of Party tactics to reflect when they are told that the law as regards juries in Ireland is not fairly administered, is it not necessary, is it not absolutely—[An hon. MEMBER: Ridiculous?]—no, that was not the word I was about to use. Is it not absolutely obligatory on hon. Members who ask us to vote for this Bill to show that it is not promoted with a desire to embarrass the Government, but because there is a genuine opinion that the law is bad and wrongly administered? Is it not obligatory upon them to get up and show that under this or a former Government some proved injustice did take place that there was some wrongful conviction not due to such occasional miscarriages of justice as may take place from mistakes of the jury or perjury of witnesses, failures to which all human institutions are liable? I put it to right hon. Gentlemen who have been responsible for the government of Ireland, and hope to be so again, can they possibly find it in their con sciences to support this Bill without some case made out in its favour? The law in England and Ireland is the same, but the practice is different; but that arises from the necessities of the case. The division is not between Irishmen who are Protestants and Irishmen who are Catholics, but between Irishmen who are Fenians and rebels and Irishmen who are loyal subjects. So long as that is the case it is necessary that the practice in England and Ireland should show a divergence. For my part, I say, if the law is to be altered let it be altered in both countries at once; but it is not shown that the law is bad because differing circumstances cause a divergence in practice.
§ (4.28.) SIR W. HARCOURTI did not intend to take part in this Debate and am not now going to discuss the Bill; but I cannot allow to pass without challenge such an extraordinary and ignorant statement as has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, of which a layman ought to be ashamed, not to say a lawyer. The statement which the hon. Gentleman contradicted was this: that a jury in a criminal trial had a right to find a verdict irrespective of the direction of the Judge. I should 922 have thought that there is no English citizen who does not know that that right is the foundation of our liberties. I have often heard it stated that practising barristers do not know anything of the principles of law. I would recommend the hon. Gentleman to get a copy of Lord Erskine's speeches. What was the fame of Lord Erskine founded upon except that ho induced juries to find verdicts against the direction of Lord Mansfield. The whole liberties of England depend upon that. There is another case with which any ordinary English reader is acquainted. He has never heard of it probably. I recommend him to read a copy of Holmes' Trial. In that trial the jury found dead against the direction of Lord Ellenborough; and on a further trial the jury found dead against him a second time. And it is said in Lord Campbell's Lives, so far from the Judge having rough-handled the jury, the jury killed the Judge, who died of mortification because of their not having found in accordance with his direction. Really, Sir. it is shameful to delay a Bill which has for its object the amendment of the Jury Law, and that such ignorance should be displayed by Gentlemen who endeavour to talk out the Bill. That is all I have to say in reply to the hon. Member for Deptford.
§ (4.35.) The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 205.—(Div. List. No. 83.)