SECOND READING. (Hansard, 13 May 1872)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said he proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He proposed that course because the matters contained in it were of a complicated character, and better to be dealt with in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House. He might, however, say that his main object in framing the Bill had been to bring in as many men as possible to serve on juries, and thereby to diminish the pressure of the service on each individual. It had, however, been found necessary to deal separately with the City of London, the object in view being to get the same 702 class of persons to serve on common and special juries there as elsewhere. In some cases, disqualifications would be extended. For instance, persons who had been convicted of felony would be no longer qualified to serve on juries; but, on the other hand, many classes now exempted would in future be liable to serve. Clergymen of the various religious denominations would no longer be exempt, and the Bill also proposed that the absolute exemption in favour of Members of the House of Commons should not extend beyond the Sitting of Parliament. ["No, no!"] Of course, it was quite possible that the House of Commons might entertain a different opinion on that point. Then the Bill would reduce the number of jurors, except in cases of murder, from 12 to seven, and in civil cases two out of the seven would be special jurors; but while doing so, it would in no way interfere with coroners' or grand juries. As he should propose to refer the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee, he would not now enter into its details, but would merely move the second reading.

MR. HENLEY
said, he must protest against a Bill which proposed such important changes of the law, and which had not been circulated among hon. Members many days, being discussed at so late an hour (12.45 A.M.). The alteration in the number of jurors assigning different numbers to different classes of crimes was quite novel, and in his opinion the House ought not to sanction the principle of the Bill without further consideration.

§ MR. A. YOUNG
said, he must admit that the Bill would introduce important alterations in the jury system, but thought its provisions could be better dealt with by a Select Committee than by the House at large. He could say that in the Australian colony with which he was formerly connected the number of jurors for the trial of civil issues had been reduced from 12 to 4, and that the change had proved beneficial. He was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought fit to introduce into the Bill the principle of not requiring complete unanimity in the case of 703 the decisions of juries in civil cases, because the present system was sometimes productive of results which were perfectly absurd.

MR. LOPES
hoped the Bill would be read a second time that evening, for otherwise it was doubtful whether it would become law that Session. The question had been frequently discussed by Committees of that House; and the only new proposal was the reduction of jurymen, which, he believed, would give relief to the general body of jurymen without depreciating the tribunal.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
trusted that, in assenting to the second reading, the House would not be considered as pledging itself to the affirmation of the principle of reducing the number of a jury. That principle ought not to be accepted without full discussion.

§ MR. HOLT
said, he would move the adjournment of the debate. The subject was one of great importance, and more time should, in his opinion, be given to consider it.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he could testify to the interest felt by the public in the question, and would entreat the House to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might go before a Select Committee. There would afterwards be ample time to discuss its main provisions.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would not be pressed. He wished also to point out that great inconvenience was sometimes experienced in the City of London from the fact that jurymen were summoned to attend at two or even three Courts on the same day. As to the exemption of Members of that House from serving on juries, it would not, he trusted, be taken away.

§ MR. D. DALRYMPLE
said, the qualification for jurors in this Bill was so high that it would throw the work upon a very limited number of persons. He had no objection to see the details of the Bill referred to a Select Committee provided certain constitutional questions which it involved were reserved for the decision of the House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he thought there would be some difficulty in withholding the constitutional points of the Bill from the consideration of a Committee. He must, moreover, remind hon. Members that they were dealing 704 with one of the fundamental institutions of the country, and would contend that it was not right to shuffle off a measure of such importance to a Select Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning.