HC Deb 14 May 1874 vol 219 cc285-301

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Qualification of common jurors in counties).

MR. LOPES

moved the insertion of these words—"In the county of Middlesex of not less than thirty pounds," in page 1, line 23, with a view to continue the present qualification of jurors in that county.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Qualification of special jurors in counties).

MR. J. G. TALBOT

moved, in page 3, line 21, to insert "at any sessions of the peace"—his purpose being to retain the Grand Jury panel for the Assizes as at present.

SIR HENRY JAMES

objected to the Amendment, and suggested that it would be more convenient to raise the question by way of a proviso.

After short conversation, the clause was altered so as to omit from the clause the words affecting the summoning of grand juries.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Qualification of common jurors in the City of London) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Qualification of special jurors in the City of London).

MR. GOLDNEY

moved, in page 3, line 34, after "man," to insert— whose name shall be in the jurors' book for the City of London, who shall be an esquire or person of higher degree, or a banker, merchant, broker, corn factor, architect, surveyor, or wholesale warehouseman.

SIR HENRY JAMES

pointed out that the Amendment would make the definition of a special juror vague in the extreme, and hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

also urged that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Exemptions).

MR. J. G. TALBOT

moved, in page 4, line 1, after "judges," to insert "justices of the peace."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he hoped that justices of the peace would not be exempted, for there were in his county 105 justices of the peace, and they had very little to do.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, that to exclude justices of the peace from juries would be to strike out the brains of the jury-box.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SANDFORD

moved, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "and all Serjeants" to "in actual practice," inclusive in line 5, and insert "members of Her Majesty's Privy Council." The hon. Member said, that the bewigged and begowned gentlemen one saw doing nothing at Westminster should be utilized in the administration of the law in some form or other.

SIR HENRY JAMES

pointed out that there were practical objections to including lawyers on juries, for barristers might be influenced by the circumstances that the counsel pleading before them had been their opponents in some other case, or by the fact that the attorney who had given them a fee on a previous occasion was interested in the cause which they had now to try as jurors.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, he had always understood that members of the Bar were excluded, not for their own benefit, but in the public interest. They existed for the benefit of the public, and yet, if they were placed on juries, they might get imprisoned in a Tichborne case, and be unable to attend to their clients.

MR. J. GOLDSMID

suggested that if lawyers were engaged on juries there would probably be fewer cases to try, and in that way the public would gain an advantage.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

remarked that it would be more correct to talk in this case of exclusion than of exemption.

Amendment negatived.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (for Mr. SALT)

moved, in page 4, line 10, after "belong," add "and parish clerks." He regarded them as a class whose case deserved special consideration. They were persons who had a "freehold" employment, and who could not employ a deputy to say even the word "Amen."

MR. DODSON

said, he could not even say the word "Amen" to the hon. Member's Amendment. Parish clerks had not hitherto been exempted, and he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

MR. LOPES

said, that there were 15,000 parish clerks in England and Wales. If this Amendment were carried, he was not sure that every man in England would not become a parish clerk.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

moved, in page 4, line 28, to omit the words "veterinary surgeons." There were in the county of Kent a number of veterinary surgeons who were not members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, but who had large practice, and were very useful. He had, two years since, 300 diseased animals on his farm, and had to call in a veterinary surgeon and his two sons. The case of this valuable class of men deserved consideration, and he hoped they would be exempted.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

opposed the Amendment, and hoped his hon. Friend would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FRESHFIELD

moved, in line 29, to add— Members of the council of the municipal corporations of any borough, and every justice of the peace commissioned to keep the peace therein, and the town clerk and treasurer for the time being of every such borough, so far as relates to any jury summoned to serve in the county in which such borough is situate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. A similar proposal was made last year, and was rejected by 126 to 42.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment. Members of the town councils were the most hardly worked men of any in existence. They were exempted from time immemorial, and it should be remembered that most of them were advanced in life.

MR. LOPES

said, he thought it would be a serious matter if this Amendment were allowed to pass. In Wales the difficulty of getting jurors was very great, and he had never heard until now that the members of town councils were hard worked. This exemption would withdraw the very men it was most desirable to get as jurors.

MR. CAWLEY

said, he did not see any reason for exempting them from liability to serve on juries, and he did not think they would shirk their duties as common councilmen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOPES

, in reference to the section exempting officers of the Army and Navy while on actual service, said, the Amendment which he was now about to propose was a most important one—namely, in page 4, line 30, after "service," to insert— All persons in and belonging to Her Majesty's Navy, and borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships in Commission, also all Marines and Marine Artillery.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member was a most serious one, and he hoped he would not press it. The hon. and learned Member might as well propose to insert all non-commissioned officers in the Army.

SIR HENRY JAMES

asked his hon. and learned Friend to postpone the Motion until the bringing up of the Report.

MR. LOPES

assented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TORR

moved, in page 4, line 32, to insert "the members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board."

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he could not see why these gentlemen should be exempted any more than other people.

MR. C. TURNER

said, that the members of the Board had a larger amount of business to perform than any other Dock Board in the United Kingdom, and he urged that they were much more entitled to exemption than the members of the Trinity Board.

MR. LOPES

observed that the hon. Member's Colleague (Mr. Rathbone) proposed the same Amendment last year, when it was negatived without a division.

Amendment negatived.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

moved, in page 5, line 2, after "revenue," to insert "persons acting as Commissioners in the execution of the Acts of Parliament relating to Income Tax." The Commissioners accepted their offices solely on account of the exemption which they had thus obtained.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, such an exemption would stultify the measure. Everyone acquainted with the administration of justice knew that one of the great causes of deterioration in juries arose from the extent of the exemptions, and from their intelligence none were better qualified to serve than the gentlemen whom the House was now asked to exempt from service. If the exemption they now had were continued the standard of jurymen would be greatly lowered.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

supported the Amendment. He thought vested interests ought to be respected.

SIR HENRY PEEK

said, that to abolish the exemption would be a direct breach of justice with these gentlemen, who had accepted public duties as Commissioners of Income Tax upon the understanding that they would be exempt from serving on juries.

MR. BRISTOWE

said, he thought that these gentlemen had no more claim to exemption than other Commissioners.

Amendment negatived.

SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS

moved, in page 5, line 4, to insert "Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, their clerks and ushers." The Lord Mayor was, during his office, the hardest-worked man in the City. The Aldermen were Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, and acted as justices of the peace at the City police courts. As regards the clerks and ushers, they were entitled to the indulgence that had been extended to the clerks and ushers at the metropolitan police courts.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he had no wish to inconvenience the Lord Mayor, and he agreed that the clerks and ushers should be placed on the same footing as those employed at the Metropolitan police courts; but he would not part with the Aldermen, who were the very best men they could get to serve on juries.

SIR JAMES LAWRENCE

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not acted frankly in concealing from the House the fact that it was the opinion of Lord Coleridge, when the Bill was before the House last Session, that the clauses exempting the Judges of the land applied to the Aldermen, who were Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, and as such came within the definition of Judges.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that no doubt was Lord Coleridge's opinion, but it was not his, and when Lord Coleridge gave expression to it, he (Sir Henry James) stated that he would on the Report move a Proviso to the effect that the exemption should not apply to the Aldermen of London except those sitting as members of the Central Criminal Court; and he would now do so to prevent any dispute in future upon this point.

MR. LOPES

objected to the exemption of the Aldermen, and thought that the case of the Lord Mayor might be left to the discretion which the magistrates had the power of exercising as to his exemption under Clause 20.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

suggested that the Amendment in the first instance should be limited to the Lord Mayor—though probably that Amendment was hardly necessary.

Amendment, so amended, agreed to.

MR. HANKEY

moved, in page 5, after line 6, to insert "Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt."

MR. GREGORY

said, the Amendment would exempt the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and suggested whether such an Amendment was consistent with what had already been done.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SANDFORD

moved, in page 5, line 9, to leave out "seventy," and insert "sixty," the effect of which would be that persons of sixty years of age and upwards would be exempt.

MR. LOPES

explained that he had another Amendment, giving persons above 60 the right to claim exemption, and exempting them absolutely at 70.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Disqualification of criminals, &c.) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Men of sixty-five years of age and upwards to be exempt, if exemption is claimed in time.)

MR. LOPES

moved, in page 5, line 26, to leave out "five." The effect would be that persons at the age of 60, instead of 65, might, if they thought fit, claim exemption. If they did not claim exemption they would go on serving till they were 70, when they would be struck off the list as a matter of course. He had received a number of representations on this point, and he was very anxious to take the opinion of the Committee upon it.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he thought that no age of itself ought to carry exemption, seeing that Lord Campbell took the Great Seal at the age of 80, and that several Members of that House and Judges of the land discharged their duties after the age of 65.

MR. YOUNG

said, that the exemption of some meant an increase of burden upon others. Many men were in the prime of life at 65. He should oppose the Amendment.

MR. LOPES

said, he had been induced to propose the change in consequence of the representations that had been made to him. He had received from 300 to 500 letters from persons of 60 and upwards in favour of the Amendment.

MR. GRANTHAM

believed that if the Amendment were adopted everyone would claim the exemption who possibly could. Many men at 60 and 70 years of age could go across country very well, and it would be better if the clause were retained in its present shape.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

trusted that the Amendment would be allowed to stand. A great many gentlemen of the age in question were intellectually strong, but physically weak, and it would be very hard upon such persons to compel them to travel a long distance to assize towns to serve on juries. They should permit any person of this age who was able and willing to serve on juries to do so. He did not agree that everyone who could claim the exemption would be anxious to do so.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

supported the clause, as he believed that all the questions which came before a jury might be very well discharged by a man who was 65 years of age.

Question put, "That the word "five" stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 97: Majority 59.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Partial exemption of justices of the peace.)

MR. J. G. TALBOT

proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words "nor as a common juror anywhere." The hon. Gentleman explained that the object of this Amendment was to give to justices of the peace that exemption which they now practically enjoyed, and to which he considered they were entitled. He thought it was better, now that they were passing a Juries Bill, which was intended to comprise all the law upon the subject, to lay down what was to be the practice, and not to leave it to "understandings" in future. He had not pressed his former Amendment for the full exemption of justices, but on this he must take the sense of the Committee.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 113: Majority 97.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Jurors in particular places for which a separate court of quarter session is holden exempted from serving on juries at the general or quarter sessions of the county) agreed to.

Clause 10 (Exemption or want of qualification to be a ground of challenge, but not of avoiding any trial) agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 28, relating to the preparation, &c. of the jurors lists, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Making out lists in the city. Secondary to issue precepts.)

SIR JAMES LAWRENCE (for Mr. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR)

, moved, in page 10, line 22, to leave out "vestry clerk "and to insert "ward clerk." The effect of the clause as it stood would be that the lists in the City would have to be made out by the vestry clerks instead of the ward clerks, which would entail considerable expense and trouble upon the parishes, of which there were 110 in the City.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the word "vestry," and insert the word "ward."—(Sir James Lawrence.)

SIR HENRY JAMES

protested against continuing the preparation of the lists in the hands of the ward clerks, as they had frequently been found to exercise the power in the most objectionable manner. Vestry clerks would be infinitely more amenable to popular feeling. He should certainly oppose the Amendment.

MR. LOPES

hoped the Committee would retain the proposal made in the Bill.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

hoped the Committee would adopt the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. He was satisfied that the vestry clerks would be more liable to have a pressure brought to bear upon them in the preparation of the lists than the ward clerks, who were much fewer in number than the former.

SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, the more the jurisdiction was narrowed the more the persons who had to prepare the lists would come under the control of those whose interest it was to get excluded.

Question put, "That the word 'vestry' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 60: Majority 96.

MR. GREGORY

moved, in page 10, line 34, to leave out "managing director or manager," and insert "chairman, deputy chairman, or managing director."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 40, relating to the preparation, revision, &c. of the city lists, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Extra-parochial places to be annexed to adjoining parishes) agreed to.

Clause 42 (Overseers and vestry clerks to be paid for making out the lists.)

MR. GREGORY

said, this and the following clauses provided that the remuneration of these officers should be fixed by the courts of revision. He did not think the aldermen and justices should be trusted with an unchecked discretion in this matter, and moved, in line 26, at end, to add— and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may approve; and all such sums shall be paid by the said Commissioners, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for that purpose.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was no disposition on the part of the Government to throw any increased burden on the rates, but by undertaking to bear expenses of this kind upon the certificate of the Aldermen or justices without any other security, the Treasury would be placed in an unsatisfactory position. The Amendment, although it was calculated to check expenses, might lead to the same sort of inconvenience as was already felt with regard to the charges for criminal prosecutions. What he should suggest was that this and the two following clauses should be negatived, and after discussing the question with his hon. and learned Friend, the Government would be prepared to state what they were prepared to do on the bringing up of the Report, and the clauses could then be altered.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that as these were money clauses they could not be brought up on the Report, and the Bill must be re-committed in order to introduce them.

MR. PELL

asked what position the officers and the ratepayers would be in if the Government came to no arrangement with the promoters?

MR. CHILDERS

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should, before the matter again came before the House, submit an estimate of what this charge would be; because he had an impression that it would be a very much larger sum than the promoters of the Bill seemed to think.

MR. LOPES

said, he did not think so large a sum would be involved as appeared to be thought. The promoters of the Bill were not asking that the Government should bear the entire charge. At present the entire cost of preparing the lists was borne by the local rates; but the Bill provided that overseers should be punishable for not satisfactorily discharging their duties, and as they were to be rendered punishable, it was thought but right that they should be remunerated for the actual labour they performed.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, that in Ireland the rate collectors and clerks of unions were paid out of the rates, which was considered a great hardship, and a deputation on the subject waited on the Chief Secretary for Ireland last November, when he promised to take the subject into his consideration. He (Mr. Downing) expressed a hope that as the question of local taxation was to be brought forward this matter would be taken into consideration.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

reminded the Committee that, as the Chairman told them, these clauses could not be passed now, and it was better, as he had already said, to discuss the whole subject, and bring up new clauses when the Bill was re-committed. As it now stood it was impossible to distinguish what was to be paid out of the rates and what by the Government. As to the question raised by his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Cork (Mr. Downing), his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not as yet had an opportunity of considering it, but would do so as soon as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 43 and 44 negatived.

Clause 45 (Fines on clerks of the peace or secondary for default in duty).

MR. J. G. TALBOT

moved, in line 24, to leave out after "offence," to end of clause, and insert— committed without reasonable cause or excuse to be allowed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, to be subjected to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds at the discretion of the next Court of Quarter Sessions after the committing of the said offence. He said, that his object in this Amendment was, that the Clerks of the Peace should not be at the mercy of common informers, but to leave them to the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, who would best decide whether they had willfully offended.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 (Jury in criminal trials to be of twelve.)

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, they had now come to the most important clause in the Bill, and he thought the Committee would perhaps agree that they ought not to go farther with the measure that night. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the night was still early, and the attention of the Committee had been so well sustained in the consideration of the Bill that he thought it would be a pity to break off at present. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to report Progress.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the matter was one of very grave importance.

And there being continued cries of "Withdraw!" "Withdraw! "—

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, that as it appeared to be the wish of the Committee, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

moved the omission of the clause, with a view to raise the question whether in civil cases the number of the jury should be reduced from 12 to seven. It was proposed by the Bill that in criminal cases the number of the jury should invariably be 12, and in cases before the county courts five; but that in all other trials whatsoever there should be a jury of seven, unless one of the parties gave 12 days' notice to the other party to the action of his intention to have the cause tried by 12 jurors. He thought this was objectionable, because the present system had been in existence for centuries, and had worked well. Experience had shown that a jury of 12 men, taken indiscriminately from all classes, was a fair representation of the common sense and general opinions of the community, brought to bear upon the facts of any particular case. The object of having 12 was to secure a variety of minds and a variety of experience, and thereby guard against the possibility of a prejudiced person unduly influencing the other jurors. It was said to be an advantage to have an odd number like seven, and no doubt it would be so if a bare majority decided the case; but if such a majority did not decide it he saw no advantage in that number. No case had been made out for the change, and the burden of proof was upon those who advocated an alteration in the present law. If a jury of seven was considered sufficient he did not see why a jury of five, or of three, or even of one, might not be sufficient; but what they wanted to secure was a variety of mind in the con- sideration of the question, and a jury of 12 afforded more scope for that than a jury of seven. It had been argued that the change proposed by the Bill would afford relief to persons liable to serve on juries; but such relief was more apparent than real, as the number of jurors summoned could not be reduced so long as the parties to a civil case had an option to require a jury of 12, and the right of challenging the jury in criminal cases remained as at present. If jurors must attend, they might as well sit in the jury box as remain in attendance until their services were required.

MR. FORSYTH

considered that if it should be desired to retain 12 jurymen in all cases, the better way would be to strike out Clauses 50, 51, and 52. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, and he himself would like to have his case tried by 12 rather than by seven. But the Bill provided that no case should be tried by seven if either party required 12, and that seemed a reasonable proposal for the Committee to accept.

MR. LOPES

said, he had considerable difficulty in knowing whether his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) desired that the number should be seven or 12. The question had been properly raised, and it was a difficult one to dispose of; but as he had no feeling in the matter he would acquiesce in what the accumulated opinion of the Committee expressed. All that the Bill did was, while leaving criminal cases to be tried by 12 jurors, to provide that civil cases should be tried by seven, unless either party gave notice of their intention to demand a jury of 12. The object in view was to relieve jurymen, merchants, traders, and others, from attendance in the Courts. Everyone knew how frequently a tales had to be prayed. The case had then to be tried by a mixed jury, and the result was that the jury differed, were ultimately discharged, and the case had to be tried over again. He did not believe that juries would be worse when they were seven—on the contrary, they would consider the questions more carefully, and would work them out more for themselves; therefore the efficiency of the tribunal would not be affected. Further, he was entitled to say that the smaller number had been successfully tried in the County Courts.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he hoped these clauses of the Bill would not be proceeded with. He admitted that those persons who were placed upon the jury list were entitled to consideration; but the Committee must remember that those who enjoyed the rights of citizenship must also bear its burdens, and whilst the duties cast upon jurymen had not hitherto been very excessive it would be reduced 100 per cent by this Bill. But would this alteration cause the law to be better administered? The argument of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lopes) might be applied equally to criminal cases, for if a better verdict could be got from seven men in a civil case, surely it could also be got in a criminal case. He thought 12 was a better number of jurymen than seven. If there was one strong man upon a jury he would have greater power to override the majority. Unanimity was now obtained from juries of 12, and in almost every instance of disagreement there was some want of evidence or other reason to account for it. The leaders of the Circuits were almost unanimous against the reduction of the number of jurymen below 12.

MR. FLOYER

said, he thought it desirable to have unanimity among jurors, and as that was more likely to be obtained in a jury of seven, he approved of that number in civil cases; but in criminal cases he preferred the number 12. The reverence which existed in the country for ancient usages should make the House slow to adopt changes which marked a great departure from them.

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

said, he had no traditional fancy in favour of 12, but he supported that number be-because he thought it most conducive to the administration of justice. Rather than see this radical and organic change he would prefer the loss of this Bill altogether. It was remarkable that most of those who were in favour of reducing the number of jurymen were in favour of doing away with trial by jury in civil cases altogether. Already it bad been observed that a jury of five would be as satisfactory as one of seven; and the next step would be to reduce the number to three, until it would be said that the Judge might be safely trusted to decide the cases upon the evidence. But he did not believe in Judges being appointed to determine issues of fact, and he was totally opposed to reducing the number below 12.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that speaking for himself only, and not for those with whom he usually acted, he adhered to the views of those who thought that it was not desirable to make any change in the system which had hitherto prevailed. He regarded this Bill as not intended to alter the general principles upon which our system of trial by jury was founded, but to improve the modes of giving effect to that system. The Bill appeared to him to have three main objects in view—first, to declare the qualifications of jurymen; secondly, to regulate the proceedings for making up the jury-books; and thirdly, to improve the manner of summoning the jurymen for the discharge of their duties. There were certain other minor objects which were ancillary to these, but he could not consider the subject of the number of the jury a fit one to be dealt with by this Bill, unless the advantages of a change in the number were very clearly demonstrated or there was something like a general concurrence of opinion in its favour—as neither of those conditions existed at present, he could not recommend it for adoption.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

urged that the opinion of the country was decidedly unfavourable to the alteration of the number of the jury, and that was a circumstance of which the Legislature was bound to take notice. In deference to public feeling on the subject, he must oppose any alteration in the number of the jury.

MR. SANDFORD

expressed his surprise at the conclusion to which his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) had arrived. ["Divide!"] As hon. Members were so impatient, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought the discussion had nearly reached its termination, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to proceed to a division on the question before the House. He agreed with the Attorney General that a case had not been made out for changing the number of the jury.

SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS

thought that Progress ought to be reported. This was a most important point, and ought to be fully discussed.

MR. LOPES

trusted that as this was no new question, and as it was difficult for a private Member to obtain a night for his Bill, the Motion for reporting Progress would be withdrawn until the present question was settled.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 234: Majority 207.

MR. PEASE

hoped the hon. Member would persist in his Motion. The discussion had been entirely restricted to gentlemen of the long robe, and no Member had spoken in commercial or general interests upon the question.

MR. DODDS

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, after the overwhelming expression of opinion which the last division manifested. There was still ample time for hon. Gentlemen to state their views on the clause.

MR. YOUNG

said, he thought that if hon. Members would confine themselves to the point, they might easily come to a decision that night.

Motion negatived.

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

Resolved in the Negative.

Clause 51 (Juries in county courts) struck out.

Clause 52 (Juries in all civil cases) struck out.

Clause 53 (Verdicts to be unanimous)

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, this clause opened up a new question, and he thought the discussion ought to be postponed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, he thought that the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of retaining the number of 12. There was no magic in that number, but ever since the commencement of the British Constitution it had been adopted, and the proposal to reduce it would be a change which might lead to dangerous innovations. The two previous clauses having been negatived, he did not see why this clause should be retained.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend, and he would suggest that the Chairman should report Progress, and when they discussed the Bill again to begin with Clause 53.

MR. LOPES

intimated that, in deference to the opinion of the Committee, although he thought much might be said in favour of seven, he was quite ready to abandon the proposal to reduce the number below 12.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.