§ The Earl of Lauderdale moved, that this bill be committed, in order that it might receive such amendments as would remove any objection to which it might be liable. An act had already passed, giving the right of peremptory challenge in Scotland, and that being the case, it was quite impossible that the law by which the judge had the discretion of selection could be permitted to continue in its present state.
Lord Melvillecould not agree to go into a committee on the bill. He allowed that the selection by the Judges, of the 15 composing the jury from the 45 names returned to the, court, was a practice which had better not exist. But, having, made that admission, it did not follow, that the present bill was the best mode of 1429 getting rid of the evil. There were many objectionable provisions in it. He did not conceive any alteration necessary in the mode of summoning the jury. Persons tried for felony in Scotland had advantages—such as being furnished with the lists of the jurors and witnesses, and a copy of the indictment, fifteen days before their trial—which fully counterbalanced any inconveniences in the mode of empanelling the jury. There would, however, be no difficulty in framing a bill to put an end to the discretion of the judges in selecting the jury from the returned list: and he would bring in a bill for that purpose early in the ensuing session. He concluded by moving "that the bill be committed this day two months."
The Duke of Atholsaid, that clauses which were impracticable had been introduced into the bill, because those who framed it were not sufficiently acquainted with the law of Scotland. He particularly objected to the clause relative to the alphabetical order of parishes, which, in the county with which he was more particularly connected, would render it difficult for a summoning officer to return a jury in less than six weeks.
The Earl of Rosslyncould not understand why the noble viscount had pointed out the advantages afforded by the law of Scotland to a person accused, unless he meant to argue, that the security for his receiving justice was already too great, and that therefore more power ought to be given to the judges, or to the Crown, in returning the original list of jurors. He was ready to admit, that in cases where no particular feeling existed, in which no political question was involved, it was in general a matter of indifference how the jury might be chosen. It was certain, however, that cases did occur in which any improper selection of the jury should be guarded against, as well in the first return as in the second selection. Whether the mode to be adopted should be balloting or any other, he would not at present discuss. When the noble viscount said that no alteration in the mode of summoning the jury was necessary, he perhaps was not aware that the Court of Justiciary, in consequence of the same faces always appearing on juries, had passed acts of sederunt, directing an alteration in the mode of summoning; but these acts were not executed, and it required the force of law to produce a change.
§ The Earl of Aberdeenwas against the 1430 bill in its present state, but would willingly support a measure for doing away the objection to which the present mode of selecting the jury was liable. He had formerly been against balloting, but upon reflection he thought it would be the best mode.
§ The bill was ordered to be read a second time that day two months.