SCOTCH JURIES BILL. (Hansard, 30 June 1823)

Lord Binning
opposed the motion. The 1335 system, he admitted, required change; but not such a change as was contemplated by this bill. It was a puerile species of legislation, to come down with a measure, not absolutely to do away with a certain power, but to cast a slur on the manner in which it was exercised. He felt strong objections to nominating the jury by ballot. The hon. member for Knaresborough had, on a former evening, said a. great deal about the advantage which would be derived from nominating the jury by chance; and he had alluded to the mode of appointing committees of that House, which was done by ballot.
He (lord B.) looked upon that to be the very best mode of appointing committees in cases of contested elections, &c. But, would any man like to go to trial before a jury so formed? Several petitions had been presented on this subject by the hon. member for Aberdeen, who had prefaced their presentation with speeches which reflected on the way in which the law was administered in Scotland; and his noble friend (lord A. Hamilton) had cast reflections on the judges, to whom h attributed motives of a personal nature. Now, as he considered all those insinuations to be unfounded, he looked with great jealousy at every measure which seemed to throw a slur on the judges; which the present bill did; since it took from them a duty, which they had exercised from the time of Charles 2nd; and which had heretofore been acted on for the benefit of all parties.

§ Mr. Abercromby
said, that the noble lord, in opposing this bill, had not stated his real objection, which could only be guessed at. The noble lord was adverse to the appointment of juries by ballot, because it would be a matter of blind chance. Now, it was for that very reason that he (Mr. A.) approved of it. To him it appeared to be, as it would depend entirely on chance, the fairest mode that could be proposed for nominating a jury. He could not argue this point, since the noble lord had advanced no reason for his opposition. All he said was, "I don't like this proposition, and I won't agree to it." The noble lord admitted that a change was necessary. If that were the case, then the question was, how it could be effected. The present measure had been considered in the committee as the best that could be devised; and he should like to know why the noble lord had not urged his objections on that committee. No objection 1336 was, however, offered to the bill in the committee; and therefore he contended that the noble lord was now too late with his opposition.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the present bill could not passion such argument as that of the learned gentleman's, which had nothing to do with the measure, but was in fact an argumentum ad hominem, directed against his noble friend. The question was—whether the alteration which it was proposed to make in the administration of the criminal law of Scotland, by this bill, was or was not a wise one? He had very serious doubts of the wisdom of passing this bill; and he believed, that before two sessions had passed, the hon. member would be an advocate for the amendment of his own measure. The jury-books were made up alphabetically; so that before they could proceed to the letter B, they must exhaust all the names under the letter A, and the whole jury might be composed of Abercrombies [a laugh]. Now the having an entire jury of the same name might, in cases of assault, or offences growing out of ancient feuds, have a very bad effect. He thought that there were to be found considerable difficulties in the way of carrying the bill into effect. He could not consider it prudent in the hon. member to attempt so considerable a change in the criminal law of Scotland by any bill brought in so late in the session, and with so very little opportunity allowed for the discussion of it.

§ Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that by the admission of almost every one in the House who had spoken, the principle of judicial selection had been condemned. If any novelty were to be introduced, it must be founded either upon selection or upon a fortuitous mode of appointment; The right hon. gentleman himself did not approve of selection by the judges; and his hon. and learned friend near him had adopted that which he considered the most unexceptionable mode, that of ballot. The objections of the right hon. gentleman, as they went merely to possible difficulties, were of a nature so general that no measure could be invented to which such objections might not be opposed. Having, however, admitted the impropriety of judicial selection, and suffered the opportunities escape him of discussing the bill on the second reading, or of improving it in the committee, the right hon. gentleman, in proposing to 1337 put off the proper remedy, was proposing the continuance of an evil to Scotland which he himself did not justify, and which was generally reprobated.

§ Mr. Canning
could not allow that his right hon. friend was bound to approve of this bill, because he disapproved of judicial selection; especially as he had opposed the second reading of it, and the committee upon it. For his own part, he disliked the present mode of selection by the judges; not because any thing improper had been, or could be alleged against it practically, but because he considered that mode unsightly, and unseemly in theory. But he by no means wished on that account to be considered an advocate for the ballot, to which he felt strong objections. He did not consider himself sufficiently acquainted with the details of the bill, to warrant him, considering the important measure it comprised, in giving his support to it. He thought the subject could not be safely determined upon until next session, when, if he found the objections removed, he would give his concurrence to some modification of the system which now existed.