HC Deb 27 June 1873 vol 216 cc1505-22

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 45 (Overseers and vestry clerks to present their accounts to the courts of revision.)

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 6, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the clause.—(Mr. Magniac.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."


observed that the matter under discussion had been fully considered in the Select Committee, the large majority being of opinion that the amount being very small it would be better to leave it in this way —if these charges were removed from the local rates this should go with them, and if they remained local burdens, it should remain with them. He did not in the least complain of the discussion which had been raised, nor did he wish to commit the House to the expression of any opinion on a matter which might be said to be sub judice. What he proposed was, to follow the precedent set in the 63rd section of the Irish Land Act, where a number of duties were imposed on existing officers, and it was provided that any additional expense incurred should be paid by the Treasury "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for that purpose." If that proposal were assented to, and if the Committee would pass the clause in its present form, he would take care on the Report to bring up another clause carrying out that view.


thought the hon. and learned Gentleman's present proposal was very satisfactory, and certainly much better than the original proposal to throw the expense upon the rates.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Clause 50 struck out of the Bill.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 (Jury in trials for murder to be of twelve).


said, that was the only matter on which he thought he should have occasion to trouble the Committee with any remarks. He proposed to amend the clause by adding, in line 28, after "jurors," these words, "of whom four shall be special and eight shall be common jurors." He would take that opportunity of remarking that the Bill, as it left the Select Committee, was, in his view, defective in one respect, and made certain alterations in the composition of juries in others. It did not provide what he had exceedingly at heart, that was, to ascertain the relative proportions of common and special jurors upon every ordinary jury. The Bill, as it left the Select Committee, did make this considerable alteration—it provided that so far as treason and murder were concerned there should be 12 jurors to try a case, but in other cases the number of jurors should be reduced to seven, and there were also some Amendments inserted on the subject of unanimity. He had not altered his own judgment as to having the number of jurors fixed at seven in ordinary cases. He believed that that number would in general be quite sufficient, and the labour of jurors would be much lessened by reducing the number to seven. Twelve might be an ancient number, and people were fond of old associations and traditions; and it was all very well for hon. Gentlemen in that House, and for Judges, to say that they preferred that the number should be 12; but then those Gentlemen had not the liability to serve on juries. To his mind it was of great importance that juries should consist only of persons who were willing to undertake the duty, and that it should not be so burdensome that they would try to escape from it. He had, however, received so many communications from different quarters against any change in the number of 12 that he was disposed to give way. He had also solicited the opinion of the Common Law Judges, and had received from the Lord Chief Justice a statement that they were unanimously of opinion, and strongly so, that there was no cause for diminishing the number of jurors constituting a jury, and, further, that there would be an objection to having 12 for one kind of jury and seven for the others. That being so, and having also heard strong opinions expressed to the same effect from various other quarters, he had thought it better to yield the point, and therefore he should himself move to amend the Bill by striking out that part of it which proposed to reduce the number of jurors to seven. It was with considerable reluctance he had yielded this point, because he knew how irksome it was under the present system for so many jurors to be required to attend. He had, however, thought it better to give way in reference to this matter, which was not of itself of vital importance, rather than to risk the success of the measure. He had also communicated with the learned Common Law Judges on the subject of the unanimity now required of jurors in finding their verdicts, and he had ascertained that although they were themselves unanimous with regard to retaining the present number of jurymen on the jury, they were divided on the subject of the necessity of unanimity on the part of the jurors in finding their verdict. He did not disguise his opinion that the time for requiring absolute unanimity on the part of jurors had gone by, and that it would be more reasonable to accept the verdict of a certain definite majority. It was not right that some unreasonable or ill-conditioned juryman should have the power, by standing out against his 11 colleagues, to cause the whole expense of a protracted trial to be thrown away, or to enable a notorious criminal to escape from justice. Holding that view, therefore, he should take the opinion of the Committee upon the point, which, however, he did not regard either as being of vital importance to the Bill. He now came to a point which he had very greatly at heart, and on which, in his opinion, the value of the Bill very largely depended. In his view, it was most desirable that the special jury and the common jury elements should be represented in a certain definite and ascertained proportion on all juries. The main objections that he had heard raised against his proposition were these—that the different classes in this country would not like to be fused together in a jury-box; that there was a want of constitutional precedent for the proposed change; that the influence of the special jurors would dominate and overcome the freedom of will of the common jurors; that the result would be to create class antipathies in the jury-box, and that difference in the amounts paid to the jurymen would be to create an invidious distinction between them. The last objection he proposed to meet by rendering the payment to all jurors on each jury the same. As a matter of history, it was well known to every lawyer that up to 100 years ago all classes were fused together in cases where the sheriff was instructed to summon a "good jury," an expression that was equivalent to our present "special jury." The technical distinction between common and special jurors was a thing of yesterday, and during the last two or three years since the Act of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) had come into operation, both classes of jurors had been placed on the same list, and in fact he had been informed by Mr. Erle, that on a recent occasion, in the Court of Common Pleas, for several days common-jury cases had been tried wholly, or almost wholly, by gentlemen who were special jurors. There was very high authority in favour of the fusion of the two classes upon juries. The Common Law Commissioners reported in that direction in 1853; there was a similar Report in 1860; and the Judicature Commission in 1869 approved what had been said in the two previous Reports. It was true that those bodies had expressed themselves in favour of an indiscriminate admixture of both classes of jurors, but it would be found to work much better if a definite and ascertained proportion of each class were placed on the jury. In fact, it would be almost impossible to insure that there should be a fair proportion of each class on every jury, unless something else than mere chance were to be relied upon. For instance, in Kent there were 15,200 common jurymen and only 400 special jurymen; and how was it possible under such circumstances that the presence of even one special juryman could be insured in each jury if the jurors were taken by chance from a general list? In St. Pancras the proportion of special jurors was still less. On the other hand, in the City of London, the greater proportion of the jurymen consisted of merchants, whose time would be utterly wasted if 12 of them were required to determine some small common jury cause. In order that the tribunal should be one which would be most likely to do justice between persons of all classes and engaged in every variety of business who might appeal to juries in order to the settlement of questions at issue between them, it was of great importance that there should be a definite proportion of jurors in civil and criminal cases, and in some criminal cases—cases of felony—it was necessary that they should, as far as possible, have the higher class of mind to investigate and discriminate on the evidence. The prisoner, in cases of felony, had the right to challenge any man being placed upon the jury to try him for such reasons as he might be supposed to entertain. It might be thought that in some cases prisoners should be tried by a particular class of men, but in a butcher's case it would not be desirable to have a jury of butchers. He could not think how there could be any objection to making the standard of the jury certain and definite, instead of taking the jury haphazard. It had been said there were objections to his proposal. Now, what were they? It was not impossible to have definite proportions in the composition of the jury. A jury composed of classes it was said would be discordant; but why should it be supposed that men going into a jury-box should enter into it with discordant feelings? He thought that class tests should be given up. If they would look at the jury list of the parish of St. Pancras, they would see that juries were indiscriminately entered in that list. He found in a page which he now opened haphazard the name of a photographer, that of a butcher, that of an artist, and those of men of the grade of society from which special juries were drawn. It was generally agreed, he believed, that it would be desirable to have a mixture of classes in the ranks of jurors, and he wished to know, therefore, why the relative proportions of the different classes should not be definitely fixed so that there might be one regular standard, as far as that was possible of attainment. He did not for a moment believe in the assertion that the fusion of classes would tend to discord in the jury-box, for it was a general aspersion upon all society to suggest that a jury would fail to do justice between litigants simply because they belonged to different ranks in society. The experience of three years had shown that none of the evils anticipated from the course he suggested were in the least likely to arise, and therefore he moved to amend the section by inserting words to provide that in all trials of civil or criminal issues the jury should consist of 12 persons, of whom four should be "special" and eight "common" jurors.

Amendment proposed, in line 28, after "jurors," insert "of whom four shall he special and eight shall be common jurors."— (Mr. Attorney General.)


said, the question now before the Committee, as he understood it was, whether there should be composite juries, that was to say juries composed of mixed classes. Now, that was a most important question, and a proposal to which he was most decidedly opposed. The Bill had been most carefully discussed in a Committee upstairs, of which he had the honour to be a Member, and a division was taken on this question; and in his recollection of that division the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who new brought forward this proposal, stood alone, every single Member of that Committee voting against him. Those Gentlemen were almost all of them lawyers, who had had much professional experience of the working of the law and its administration in Courts of Justice. The Judges, too, had had some parts of the Bill submitted to them for the expression of their opinions. Why had they not been asked to pronounce upon that particular part of it? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the Bill was submitted generally to the Judges, but they had not expressed an opinion on this part of it.] With regard to the question of "unanimity" in the verdict of the jury, the hon. and learned Gentleman said the opinion of the Judges had been taken, and that the majority of the Judges were opposed to any alteration. The number of which the jury should consist, and whether the jury should be unanimous were questions of great importance. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he had abandoned his desire to reduce the number of juries. Now, on that question he might say that he had often himself, in that House, expressed his opinion that while in criminal cases the number should be 12; in civil cases it would be more convenient both to the jurors themselves and the public generally that the number should be seven. They had precedents for the smaller number in the constitution of County Court juries which consisted of five members; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had abandoned his proposal to reduce the existing number of jurors he (Mr. Lopes) should not say anything more on that part of the Bill. He came now to the question of "unanimity" of juries in their verdicts, and he, for one, was in favour of unanimity, because he believed that its abolition would never give satisfaction. With regard to a single juror standing out and no verdict in consequence being come to, he believed it to be a very rare case, and there were occasions when the single juror was right. But of this he was quite certain, the necesssity for that "unanimity" led to a thorough investigation and consideration of the case by all the jurors, which its abandonment would fail to secure. He was aware that it was said that unanimity was not required in the Scotch jury system; but in Scotland there was an intermediate verdict of "not proven," which destroyed the analogy. With regard to the proposal of "composite" juries, he held that it was impossible that such a composition in a jury could give satisfaction. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that, in his opinion, such a composition as he advocated would not cause discord among jurors, but he (Mr. Lopes) believed the contrary. And he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he himself had not seen cases where a tales had been prayed, and common jurors called into the box to make up a special jury, in which discord was manifested in their deliberations, the special jurymen taking one side the common jurymen the other? Take the case of an action to enforce farming covenants in a lease; was it likely the special juryman and the common would entertain the same opinion? They might take other cases—that, for instance, of a gentleman and his tenant serving on the same jury. Was it not likely that the gentleman might exercise an influence on his tenant; that a good customer sitting on the same jury with his tradesman might also exercise some influence? He maintained that in the composition of such a jury they would have the elements of discord, and in many cases no verdict at all; and he was bound to say that, all through the profession the feeling was generally against the proposal of the Attorney General, which he hoped the Committee would reject.


said, composite juries were an innovation upon the constitutional doctrine that a man should be tried by his peers. If two classes were expressly empanelled upon a jury, in certain proportions, and if the four special jurymen were ticketed as men of superior intelligence, who were to enlighten the rest of the jury, the result must be antagonism between the two classes; nor would rating at £100 a-year be any sufficient test of the higher qualification which a special juryman was supposed to possess. The real question was, did the present system of 12 men indiscriminately selected give confidence to the people that they would have a fair trial according to the laws of the country? He maintained that it did. In the case of the gas stokers, for instance, though there were complaints of the severity of the Judge and of the state of the law, there was no complaint of the verdict of the jury. But if we did anything to weaken the confidence of the people in trial by jury we would damage the law itself. He hoped that the Committee would reject the proposal by so large a majority as to show that these theoretical or speculative opinions of professional men had no influence on the House of Commons.


said, his hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed not to be content with the lawyers, even when they agreed with him. With respect to the retention of 12 jurors, he (Mr. G. Hardy) agreed in it, because it was a tribunal that had given satisfaction to the people. He thought the principle of unanimity should be retained, because in criminal cases there was no appeal; but if that unanimity was abolished, the right of appeal must be established. It would be far better to retain unanimity than to introduce the difficulties that must arise in the establishment of majorities. In civil cases the parties were able by consent to try with a less number than twelve, and that right should be retained. As to the composition of the jury, what be understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to propose was, that they should have two lists from which to select the juries—namely a common and a special list, and that eight should. be taken from the common jury list and four from the special jury list.


explained that there would be but one jury list; but that the special jurors would be distinguished from the others by having the letter S attached to their names, or in some similar way.


said, that was practically having two lists. But see what enormous hardships would arise from such a system. According to his hon. and learned Friend, in Kent there were 15,200 common, and only 400 special jurors; in other words, the special jurors were only in the proportion of one in 38 to the common jurors. Therefore, if four special jurors were chosen for eight common jurors, the former would have to serve 19 times oftener than the latter. Now, that was a great hardship, and very unfair. If a distinction such as that proposed were made, it would shake confidence in the mind of the people in the tribunal. He quite agreed that the more mixed the general jury list the better, but the selection of the jury should be left to chance, and not to the officer of the Court; otherwise, if there was a division of eight to four it would be said that the four were the gentlemen's jury and the eight the common men's jury. We all knew what "good juries," meant in former times, and if the attempt was made now to get "good juries," it would be said that it was done in order to get "good verdicts," which very often would be far from satisfactory to the people.


was of opinion that if they were to have a jury selected from the different classes, the effect would be to shake all confidence in trial by jury. He was unable to understand hew the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General's proposal could be carried out, if the right of challenge was retained; because the four specials selected by the officer of the Court would in all probability be continually challenged. They were embarking by that Bill on a most dangerous course, and the Committee should well consider the proposition, before they adopted that which would destroy the confidence which now existed in trial by jury. They were trying to raise the standard of the jury; but in his opinion they were going too far. He had heard observations made about the poor man's feelings; one thing he would remark, that the poor man would not be "tried by his peers," but by a class above him; and if they did not take care in their legislation they would cause great injury. He wanted to know what was the object of this proposed change. Were the people of this country dissatisfied with the existing system of the trial by jury? He did not believe that they were, and he warned the House not to give way to such a proposed change as that now under consideration. It was already observed that the principle that the poor man should be tried by his peers was violated at present, and care should be taken lest dissatisfaction should be created in the poorer classes because they were tried by persons superior to them in wealth.


said, there could be no doubt they had arrived at a very important part of the Bill, and they should give it their most serious consideration. With regard to criminal cases the feeling of the country was that the number of the jury should continue 12, as at present. He very much regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had departed from his original proposal, for with regard to civil cases, he (Mr. Gregory) was of opinion that a jury of "seven" would give satisfaction, and what the reason was for maintaining the number 12 he really could not understand. There was no doubt that there had been great scandals in the administration' of justice from requiring unanimity in juries, the effect being to enable one or two obstinate men to stand out, and either to prevent a verdict being returned or enforce a compromise. He was of opinion that a jury of seven with a verdict of six would give general satisfaction as regarded the plan of mixed juries. With all respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, he did not think that this scheme would work satisfactorily. He (Mr. Gregory) was in favour of maintaining the distinction between special and common jurymen, and he could not help thinking that in mixing the two classes together they would create feelings of jealousy, and that in many cases the higher class of jurors might use influence to induce the humbler class of jurymen to give a larger amount of damages than they might otherwise be disposed to award. There was another point connected with the subject which he wished to refer to. He was of opinion that in cases of murder the jurors should be selected from the special jury list. It need be remembered that there could be no reversal of the sentence in these cases after execution, and that they frequently turned upon circumstantial or scientific evidence of much nicety, and requiring much discrimination. The result was that an ignorant or incompetent jury was obliged to rely altogether upon the direction of the Judge, and the verdict became his instead of theirs.


thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would do well to consider the suggestions made as to the composition of his proposed jury class, and the method of selection of the jurors; for, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had pointed out, if the mixed system were adopted special jurors would in Kent be called upon to serve 19 times for every once that a common juror had to serve. This would aggravate many times the unfairness which was now complained of. Moreover, he (Mr. Goldsmid) saw no reason to alter the composition of the jury, for the tendency in this country at present was to raise the standard of education in the class from which common juries were selected; and that being so, there did not appear to him to be any occasion to change the form and character of the tribunal of trial by jury. He was inclined also to think it was often more through the fault of counsel than of the jurymen that the latter did not understand a case. He knew that in the county of Kent, common jurymen had shown that they understood the questions they had to try, and as to the hon. and learned Gentleman's remedy, it would be worse than the disease he spoke of. He felt that they would by the Bill create a class distinction which would produce bad effects, and he hoped for those reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) and consent to the clause being withdrawn.


was of opinion that if the clause were carried out it would be productive of great dissatisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) had given special reasons why the clause should not be accepted, and his suggestions were worthy of the serious consideration of the Committee. He (Mr. Floyer) did not see any necessity for raising the character of the jurors. His experience in quarter sessions had led him to the conclusion that the present juries were on the whole satisfactory. He took exception to the proposed change in the composition of juries, and considered that the hardship which the fixing of definite proportions of each class must impose on the special jurors would be intolerable, while the line of distinction which it was proposed to draw between the two classes must prove seriously detrimental to the interests of justice.


was in favour of the standard of juries being improved, but not through the artificial method proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He would put the matter to his hon. and learned Friend in this way. There was a great demand among certain classes of the people for the introduction of "working men" into the House. Nobody, he thought, would object to the presence of one or two working men in the House; but if it were proposed that a definite number, say 40 working men, should be Members of that House, could anything more fatal to such a scheme be proposed? Or suppose it was proposed that so many country gentlemen, lawyers, doctors, and merchants should be Members of that House, could anything be suggested more condemnatory of such a plan? He, therefore, hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the clause, which would force upon the Committee to say that there should be an artificial proportion of what was called the more educated class to the ordinary class of jurors.


said, he could answer the objections which had been made to the clause, but he would give way and not trouble the Committee. His fate before the Select Committee was to stand alone on the question, and it would seem that his fate had pursued him into the House itself.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


pointed out that since the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not insist on the point, the object of the clause otherwise was already provided for by the Common Law, and he would therefore suggest that the clause, being superfluous, should be struck out.

Motion agreed to.

Clause struck out accordingly.

Clauses 53 and 54 negatived.

Clause 55 (Special juries to be of special jurors only).


moved at the end of the clause the insertion of the words— Provided also, That the existing right of either party to pray a tales shall not be affected by this clause.


said, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, since Clause 93 of the Bill already effected the same thing.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"


moved its omission altogether, as its insertion would simply leave the law exactly where it was at present.


said, but for some clause of the kind the law would not stand as it did now.


pointed out that an inconsistency would arise if the clause were passed, since the Committee had already decided that there should not be a composite jury of special jurors with common jurors without the consent of both parties. Supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General himself were to try the question with that Bill before him, and one of the parties prayed a tales. His hon. and learned Friend might then turn to the former part of the Bill and say—" You have no right to a special jury with a common juror upon it, without the consent of both parties. I, for one of the parties, do not consent."


said, the Bill enacted for the first time that the ordinary common jury should consist of both common and special jurors. That being the case, he had thought that it might be said—now that special and common jurors were to serve in turn together on the same jury, that the old special jury was abolished; and therefore the present clause was required.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 110: Majority 55.

Clause 56 struck out.

Clause 57 (Courts empowered to order the attendance of jurors).


pointed out that the plan of selecting jurors from the list alphabetically would in large counties like Yorkshire and Lancashire have the effect of causing great inconvenience. The present plan was the best, as it enabled jurors to be drawn from the neighbourhoods in which the cases were to be tried, instead of absolute strangers being drawn from distant points at great and unnecessary personal inconvenience.


agreed with the last speaker, and pointed out that in Yorkshire, the county from which he came, the operation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General's proposal would produce endless confusion and inconvenience.


said, that even in large counties like Lancashire and Yorkshire there was but one Sheriff and one jury list, and. he presumed that if his proposal was acceded to the particular jurisdictions would, as now, be carefully attended to.


said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had dropped out of the Bill almost all of its provisions as far as they had gone, and in order to enable the Government to consider the propriety of dropping the measure altogether, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Anderson.)


opposed the Motion.


hoped the Motion would not be pressed. There yet remained in the Bill excellent machinery for regulating the incidence of service upon jurors, and he hoped it would be proceeded with.


said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.


agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), that, under the Bill as it stood, considerable hardship might be inflicted on jurors in Lancashire and Yorkshire.


expressed a hope that the machinery to be used in summoning jurors would be so constructed that the anticipated hardship might be avoided.


reminded the Committee that the question did not arise under the clause they were considering.


said, that when he drew attention to the subject the other evening, he was told by the Attorney General that the question could be best considered under the present clause.


observed that if better machinery than that proposed by the Bill were not provided, there would be so much dissatisfaction created by the measure that it would have to be amended next year.


hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take the suggestion thrown out by hon. Members into consideration.


said, that under the Bill the three Ridings of Yorkshire would be treated as one county.


said, that such was certainly not intended to be the case. He would take the entire question raised into consideration so as to secure that the system of rotation might not in operation involve the hardship or inconvenience which hon. Members seemed to apprehend, but which he failed to see that it could. If any plan could be devised by which the issues to be tried at a particular place should be tried by juries drawn from around that place he should be glad to accept it.


remarked that the entirely new system introduced by the Bill would be felt most onerous in its application to that part of the country with which he was connected, and would make the Government very unpopular.


called attention to the fact that this question would be naturally raised on the 65th section, which provided that the summoning officers should take the names as they appeared in rotation on the list. If the Committee discussed subsequent clauses beforehand, and then discussed them afterwards all over again, the House might sit till next year.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 61 (Cause may be made triable by special jury by order).


moved in page 17, line 29, at end add— and further, that the court or a judge in such case as they or he may think fit, may order that a special jury be struck according to the practice in force before the passing of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1852,' and such order shall be a sufficient warrant for striking such special jury and making a panel thereof for the trial of the particular cause. A case of considerable importance might arise in which it might be desirable to have some commercial men upon the jury, and there might be no such men in the panel, and a discretionary power ought to be given to the Judge to strike a special jury under the old system in such an event.


hoped the Amendment would be agreed to. The old process was preserved in the Act of 1870, and there could be no objection raised to it, as it could only be carried out, under the proposed Amendment, by leave of the Judge.


thought it would be useful to preserve the power and therefore had no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to

Clause 64 (Jurors to serve in other courts than those for which they were summoned).


moved in page 18, line 15, before "Every," insert— No juror summoned in any civil cause shall be required to attend upon his summons for more than two consecutive days unless he shall have been sworn and empannelled upon some jury for the trial of a cause. He was not anxious to keep to the two days; they might be two or three; but he thought a man ought not to be kept day after day without being empannelled. Unless he was empannelled within a reasonable time the juror should be discharged.


thought such an Amendment would be very desirable, if it could be carried out, but there would be great difficulties in its way. If the Amendment were adopted and the first case in the list lasted for two whole days the Judge might find himself without a single juror left to try the remaining cases. The question was one which ought to be left to the discretion of the Judge and the associate.


said, he could not assent to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 65 (All jurors to be summoned by the sheriff only).

Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again;"—(Mr. Assheton), put and agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.

The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

Forward to