§ Mr. Shawrose to move for a copy of the correspondence between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish fudges, relative to the Irish. Juries Bill. He would be the last person to ask for such a document if it could be considered a confidential communication, or one advising the discretion of the Executive. But a moment's consideration of the nature of the paper in question would show, that a refusal to produce it could not be cloaked under the plea of its being a confidential communication. The Bill to which it had reference passed the House last Session, and afterwards was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords—while the Bill was in that state, the Secretary for Ireland addressed an official communication to the twelve Irish Judges, requesting their opinion how far its principle could be carried into effect without endangering the due execution of Justice. The Judges had written an official answer, the existence of which was not only admitted, but their opinion had been represented by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as favourable to the measure, while five peers who had read the opinion solemnly and expressly recorded their dissent from the measure because the opinion of the Judges was unfavourable to it, and he (Mr. Shaw) would add, that having been permitted by the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lamb), to read the opinion himself, that while the Judges admitted that some of the enactments of the Bill might be introduced with advantage, they conveyed their most distinct disapprobation of its principal provisions. The main feature was the establishment of a Juror's book. That was the important and material change made by the Bill; and the Judges declared, that in the present state of Ireland that alteration in the Jury system was most objectionable, and must lead to consequences endangering the administration of justice in that country. They also said, that in their opinion the great majority of persons who would, under the Bill, be qualified in respect of property to serve as Jurors, would in all other requisites of a Juror be unfit to be returned on a 1232 panel. In strictness he was ready to admit that the House was not bound by the opinions of others, however competent they might be to form a correct opinion but that was more in theory than in practice, for, above all other times, at the present were Commissions issued without end to advise the House on questions with regard to which it was about to legislate. He might instance the factories, the Poor-laws, the Law Amendments, Commissioners, whose opinions were constantly quoted, and in many instances, were made the groundwork of legislation. He would ask, then, could there be any subject-matter of legislation more needing sound advice and consideration than that which must so vitally affect the Administration of the Law in Ireland as the Jury Bill in question, or a body of individuals more competent to form a just opinion on any subject than the Irish Judges were as to the execution of the laws in which they were daily and hourly engaged? The question, however, was not whether their opinion should ever have been taken, or whether it was in itself right or wrong, but when it had not only been taken, but subsequently referred to by members of the Irish Government, and when contradictory constructions had been put upon it, whether it was not just as regarded the Judges that their deliberately pronounced opinion should be allowed to speak for itself; and fair towards the House that so valuable and important a document should not be withheld, when they were called upon at such a period as the present, and under the existing circumstances of Ireland, to pass a law which would unsettle the whole Jury system of that country? He trusted the Government would not resist the Motion. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for a copy of the document in question.
§ Mr. Littletonwas sorry that he felt obliged to object to the Motion. He sincerely wished, that he could, consistent with sound principle and precedent lay the paper which the hon. and learned Gentleman called for on the Table of the House; for though the Judges expressed their disapprobation of one part of the Bill, it would be found, that they bore valuable testimony to the utility and advantage of other parts of it. There was no precedent for granting such a return as this; on the score of convenience, too, 1233 the Motion was objectionable, and if they should grant such a return as this, similar returns must be granted in every other similar instance.
§ Colonel Conollywas sorry to find, that the right hon. Gentleman objected to the production of the document in question. He had had several conversations with the Judges in Ireland upon the subject, and they all were of opinion the Bill in question, in many of its details, must operate anything but beneficially. The constitution of Juries in Ireland was a subject than which nothing could be of greater importance, and he, therefore, could not help regretting, that the right hon. Gentleman should object to the production of a document which would enable the House to come to a sound decision on the subject. He was there authorized to give utterance to the sentiments of the Judges, and he had no hesitation in stating, that they all reprobated that part of the measure which appeared to give so much satisfaction to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin.
Mr. Ruthvenhighly approved of the conduct of the Government in refusing to grant this return. Such a document should not be produced for the purpose of influencing the determination of the Legislature.
Mr. O'Connellprotested against the production of this document for the purpose of influencing Parliament, and must say, that he doubted whether the Judges should have been consulted at all upon the Bill. He was sorry to hear, that they approved so much of the Bill. He would much rather that they had altogether disapproved of it.
§ Mr. Anthony Lefroyregretted very much, that his Majesty's Government had come to the decision of opposing the Motion of his hon. and learned friend. He thought the Government was bound to give the House every information upon the subject, before they called upon hon. Members to pronounce an opinion on the Bill.
Mr. Stanleywas ready to agree in the statement that the opinion of the Judges should not be brought forward in order to influence the decisions of that House. After what had passed on the subject of this Bill last Session, the Government had thought it necessary to take the opinion of the Judges in Ireland as to the practical working and effect of the measure. 1234 He quite agreed with his right hon. friend, that it would be most inconvenient to bring forward such an opinion, especially with a view to influence the decision of that House. The Judges should be strictly confined to the discharge of their judicial functions. He repeated, that it would be a most inconvenient precedent to drag forward an opinion of the Judges, given in a confidential manner to the Government, with a view to influence the proceedings of the Legislature. He regretted that it had been noticed in any way for such a purpose in another place.
§ Mr. Shawsaid, that if the opinion of the Judges was not to be produced, he certainly concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it ought not to have been referred to, and he could only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first person who had referred to the opinion for the purpose of supporting his own views (though if produced it must have the very contrary effect) was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He did not deny, that in a constitutional point of view it was the province of Juries to check and control Judges, but no one knew better than the honorable and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) that that was not the only duty Irish Juries had to perform; and upon that account he readily believed the hon. Gentleman when he said, that the less the Judges liked the Bill, the better it would please the hon. and learned Member. He (Mr. Shaw) had heard no good reason given for the non-production of the correspondence, but he would leave with the Government the responsibility of refusing his Motion.
§ Motion withdrawn.