Lords Sitting of 2 April 1833

MINUTES.
Bill. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.
Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from Clitheroe, against Sunday Trading.—By Lord KING, from six Places in Ireland, against Tithes and Church Cess; from a Congregation at Wem, for Relief, for Protestant Dissenters; from certain Christians called Separatists, for substituting in all Cases a Solemn Affirmation for an Oath; from the Political Union of Yeovil, for the Abolition of Restrictions on the Press; and from Paisley, for Poor Laws for Ireland.—By Lords AUCKLAND, SUFFIELD, and KING, by Earl FITZWILLIAM, the Marquess of STAFFORD, and the Duke of RICHMOND, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By the Earls of CAWDOR, and ROSE-BERY, from Places in Scotland, against the present System of Church Patronage in that Country.—By the Bishops of HEREFORD, Durham, Bangor, and ROCHESTER, the Earl of RODEN, and Lord REDESDALE, from a Number of Places,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of RODEN, from several Places in Ireland, against the Ministerial System of Education, and against the proposed Measure of Church Reform.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (WALES.)
Lord Kingexpressed the great regret which he felt, that when the petition respecting the abuses in the Welch Church was presented last night, a right reverend prelate (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had not been present, for on a former evening the right reverend Prelate had used expressions which had done great wrong and injury to the author of a book which he had quoted, and which he had denounced as containing a number of gross falsehoods. The right reverend Prelate had adduced two instances, and had
2
told the House to judge of the book by that sample. Now, one of the instances to which the right reverend Prelate had referred was this—that it was stated in the book, that Christ Church Oxford derived 4,000 l. from the tithes of certain parishes in Wales, whereas, in point of fact, it only derived 2,500 l. Now, on referring to the book, he found it stated in no less than four different places, at page 125, at page 132, and in two other passages, that the sum received by Christ Church Oxford, was only 2,500 l. After the right reverend Prelate had made that statement to their Lordships, there appeared a contradiction of it in some of the papers. It was not, under such circumstances, too much to expect that the right reverend Prelate would have come down to their Lordships and owned that he made an unfounded statement, 'especially as he made his own erroneous assertion the basis of the strong comment Ex uno disce omnes. The right reverend Prelate mentioned another case relating to the parish of Llandudno, which proved, that he had quoted from the same edition of Mr. Johnes's book which he then held in his hand, and to which he had already referred. When a person of the right reverend Prelate's elevated situation came forward to destroy the reputation of an author, he should confine himself strictly to repeating the exact words which that author used. He addressed the right

3
reverend Prelate on that occasion to give him an opportunity of correcting the error into which the right reverend Prelate had fallen.
The Bishop of St. Asaphregretted extremely that he had been prevented by indisposition from attending in his place yesterday evening; but he must add that if the noble Marquess had had the courtesy to inform him that he was going to present a petition connected with so humble an individual as himself, he would, not with standing his indisposition, have made a point of attending in his place in that House. He thanked the noble baron for having given him an opportunity upon this occasion of answering, not only what he (Lord King) had just said, but also the assertion that he had on a former night made an unfounded statement. He had not quoted at all from the pamphlet to which the noble Baron had referred—he had read from a paper (which he believed to be good authority, as it came from a highly respectable clergyman in his dioces) a statement to this effect—that there had appeared in a certain pamphlet, in one passage, that Christ Church Oxford received 4,700 l. a-year, and in another that it received 4,500 l. a-year for tithes from various parishes in Wales. Now, it appeared that the fact was, that the whole value of the tithes of the parishes in question was only 2,000 l. a-year, and that of this sum only 500 l. a-year was paid to Christ Church, Oxford. And, such being the case, was not the author guilty of a misrepresentation? In the parish of Llandudno the author had said, that the tithes were 250 l., and that the curate received only 68 l. a-year. Now, it was true, that the author never said that Archdeacon Jones, to whom the living belonged, received all the tithes, but he had left that fact to be supposed by all his readers. The petition which was presented yesterday came from the same quarter as those which had been presented on a former occasion. Mr. Johnes was in London, as many of their Lordships were already aware: for he had written to the editor of a newspaper a letter contradicting the statements which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had made in that House, and had requested the editor to publish that letter along with his report of the proceedings in that House. That was a gross breach of privilege, but certainly not worth the notice of their Lordships. He understood that Mr. Johnes had lost considerably by the publication of
4
his pamphlet, and that he was now presenting petitions in order to get a sale for it in that manner. He would not say, that that pamphlet abounded with falsehoods, but he would say, that it abounded with gross misrepresentations. He was sorry to hear the noble Marquess, on a former occasion, cast a sneer upon a most respectable clergyman in his diocess, the reverend Mr. Cleaver. A better man did not exist, and he only wished the noble Marquess to imitate the conduct and follow the example of that clergyman, who gave away among the poor three parts of the income which he derived from his living. Regarding this gentleman and his brother, Mr. Johnes had been guilty of many misrepresentations. Mr. Johnes had also given a list of all the places from which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) derived his income. The description was so minute that a stranger must suppose it true, for he summed up all the items by saying, "Total amount of the revenues of the Bishop, 9,267 l. a-year." So minute were the items, that any person reading them must suppose that Mr. Johnes had had access to the books of his receiver. He could only say, that he wished very much that his income was such as Mr. JOHNES had described it to be. Their Lordships would see, that Mr. Johnes's statement was a gross misrepresentation when they had before them the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Mr. Johnes had published another letter in the papers of that morning, in which he said "I will not believe that the right reverend Prelate would charge me with wilful falsehood on light grounds." He asked their Lordships whether they were to be called to account in consequence of paragraphs in newspapers. He could not retract what he had on a former evening said; on the contrary, he felt it to be his duty to persist in asserting that the book written by Mr. Johnes contained very gross misrepresentations, and statements that were untrue.
The Marquess of Westminstersaid, that after the very pointed manner in which he had been alluded to, it was impossible for him to refrain from troubling their Lordships with a few observations. He regretted that the right reverend Prelate should have made the remarks which he had done, for as he (the Marquess of Westminster) had observed upon a former evening, they were made upon a person who had not the advantage of being entitled to answer them. The right reverend Prelate now accused Mr. Johnes of not having stated some

5
matters correctly with regard to the trustees of a certain property. It was possible that Mr. Johnes might not be correct as to the exact manner in which the revenues in question were distributed, but there seemed little doubt, that he was correct as to the revenues themselves. It was somewhat hard on the gentleman to be thus attacked when the substance of his statement appeared to be well founded. The right reverend Prelate had made serious charges against this gentleman on a former occasion, and he now tried to bolster them up by bringing forward fresh charges. The right reverend Prelate said, that he had evidence that Mr. Johnes's statements were untrue, and he referred to a letter which he said was written by a most respectable gentleman to prove them to be so. That brought the matter round to the question, which he had before urged to the House, namely, that they should probe the subject to the bottom, and for that reason he should be glad to call the persons who could give them information to the bar of the House. The petition which the right reverend Prelate before referred to, as presented in the other House of Parliament, did not mention him, but the right reverend Prelate had chosen to take it to himself, and to direct his remarks to it, and to attack the person who had presented it. The statement which had subsequently been published in a morning paper, scorned to him to be a triumphant answer to the right reverend Prelate; but then the right reverend Prelate said, that the publication of that statement was a breach of their Lordships' privileges. If it was so, the printer might, by the rules of the House, be called to the Bar, and he should, in one respect, be glad to see that done—namely, if it would afford an opportunity of proving the truth of the statement. As to the matter of privilege, however, the Orders of the House were daily more infringed by the attendance of persons to take notes of what passed, and to publish them, and still more again by the remarks made on the speeches delivered there; but the custom of calling people to the Bar for these things was now pretty well discontinued, and he must say that it seemed to him a custom "more honoured in the breach than the observance."

JURIES (IRELAND).
Lord Plunkett moved the second reading of the Juries (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Carberycould not let this Bill pass
6
without making some observations upon it, and declaring that he was strongly opposed to the measure. It professed to be a bill for the consolidation of the law for the summoning of Juries in Ireland. A more important subject could not detain their Lordships' attention. In his opinion it had been hastily introduced, and without any sufficient necessity. It ought to be founded upon the opinion of the Judges, and the defects of the present system ought to be distinctly pointed out before there was any attempt made to change it. In his opinion the whole intended effect of the Bill was to be found in the first clause, by which men who held a freehold of 10 l. a-year value or were leaseholders to the amount of 15 l., were to be put upon the Jury list. Why many of these persons could not read the issue they would have to try, and many of them were even ignorant of the English language, yet their names were to be put into the book, and the Judges would have no power of objecting to them. If this Bill were to pass into a law, he was convinced that there would be an end of justice, and of the security of the subject. The law would be liable to be abused by a bad or a corrupt Sheriff. He was confident that if the question were put to the Judges of Ireland, whether it was necessary that any change should be made in the law relating to the selection of Jurors, the majority of them would be against the change, and so would the majority of the eminent men at the bar. Instead of an improvement, he was confident that a more dangerous mode of obtaining Jurors had never been introduced. He opposed this Bill, because he was interested in the welfare of Ireland, which he was sure would be injuriously affected by it.
The Earl of Wicklowthought it would be better to continue the present system than to adopt that which was now proposed. It was a curious fact, but it was perfectly true, that among the institutions of Ireland, that which stood pre-eminently forward for its good working was the Jury system. It was said, that the Jury system of the two countries should be assimilated. Noble Lords opposite would better exercise their talents and patriotism if they were to attempt to assimilate the habits of the people and the condition of the two countries, than their system of Jury Laws. If they could do that, then they might come with some degree of plausibility to Parliament, and ask for a law to assimilate the Jury systems of the two countries. If

7
there was one evil more than another from which Ireland had suffered, it was from the too great earnestness to introduce laws adapted to a rich and civilized country, and to its refinements, into a country not thus happily circumstanced. It was said, as another reason for introducing this Bill, that the present system did not work well. That was a most manifest error. Let them consult the twelve Judges on that point. The noble and learned Lord opposite had done him the favour to show him a letter from them on this subject. That letter was supposed to express their opinion in favour of the proposed alteration. It did, in fact, say no such thing. Its meaning was mistaken. He would undertake to state, that so far from saying, that the present system did not work well, they were of a contrary opinion. They desired no change, but merely said, that if this Bill was to pass, certain alterations which they mentioned ought to be made, but they thought it not desirable to alter the law. Did then this recommendation of change come from the public Commissioners in Ireland? No, it did not; for those Commissioners, in their report, say that, having inquired of the Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs as to the efficacy of the present Jury laws, their answer had been a recommendation of them as they now stood, and a denial of the existence of any possible reason why they should not work well. From whence, then, did this Bill come? He would tell them. It came from a learned King's Counsel, who was high in the confidence of his Majesty's Government, and to whose suggestions they were ever ready to listen. It came from a learned person in a silk gown, who had continually merited all the high encomiums which had been pronounced upon him. The Bill was of his recommendation, and it must be considered by their Lordships as a new ingredient in the dish of sops for Cerberus which his Majesty's Government were in the habit of administering to that learned Gentleman. Their Lordships had not a choice whether they could reject this Bill—such an alternative was not left them—because the Government was pledged—most unadvisedly, as he thought—to this measure. It was, therefore, impossible that they should reject it. Still he acknowledged, that when compared with the last Bill on that subject which had been before their Lordships, it was decidedly of an improved character, though those improvements were not so great as their Lordships were led to
8
believe they would have been. He willingly admitted, that it was devoid of many of the objections which were observable in the other Bill—that in regard to Special Juries, it adopted the suggestions of the Judges—but its main faults still remained. The Jury-book must be filled with names from a class he could not approve. Such a host of persons were admitted—such a crowd of individuals as would disgrace any Court of Justice, and he sincerely hoped that this would be corrected in the Committee. Their Lordships must all know, that it was a total deviation from the Constitution, to make a money qualification the sole qualification for these important duties. The old Acts of Parliament on this subject, particularly of the reign of Edward 3rd, stated that "character and intelligence" were leading qualifications for a Juror—that "the most efficient and least suspected" individuals were the proper persons to be chosen. The Sheriff's oath, too, bore strongly upon this point; and without its repeal he did not see how they could pass this Bill. That oath distinctly required him not to look to one qualification alone, but to all qualifications—to see that every person called as a Juror was of sufficient standing in Life and of sufficient character. This, however, he should endeavour to amend in Committee. One part, connected with which there would be the greatest difficulty, which he considered would be wholly inoperative, was that which devolved such heavy and responsible duties on Magistrates. It required them to hold a Special Sessions, to take and register the names from the various barony collectors. Now, he had long acted as a Magistrate, and he well knew the difficulty of the duty which those functionaries had to perform—he well knew the labours they had to go through at Assizes, Sessions, and Petty Sessions. He well knew how difficult it would be to get them together; and if got together, that it would be impossible that the book could be formed. These were the grounds on which he could not give his concurrence to this Bill, and which would induce him, in the Committee, to move such amendments as he thought calculated to remedy the evils which he found in it.
Lord Wynfordsaid, their Lordships had done wrong—they had indeed been guilty of inflicting a grievous injury on the people of Ireland, by voting for the Coercive Bill, if there was any pretence whatever for the introduction and passing of the present

9
measure. Why had they been called upon to agree to that Bill—why had they consented to adopt it? Because they were led to believe that Juries in Ireland were too subject to the influence of popular opinion, and too subservient to popular feeling. And yet they were now asked to pass this Bill which gave to popular feeling a greater sway, and a stronger power than it had ever before been allowed to assume. He should endeavour to prevent his noble friend who spoke last, from proposing any Amendments in the Committee, for he looked upon the principle of the Bill as so bad, that he should move the House to reject it altogether. Were it once put into operation, it would soon be shown, that the lives of many honest men were no longer safe. It was asserted to be a good and sound principle to assimilate the law of Ireland with that of this country; but he must contend with his noble friend, that before they could wisely, and therefore safely do that, they must assimilate the people. The system which was so admirable in England—so easy in its working, and so beneficial in its effects, would, he was satisfied, if applied to Ireland, prove the greatest curse that could be sent into that country; for it would not only not afford honest men protection against danger, but it would actually put honest men in danger of their lives and property. But he greatly blamed the Government in this matter. There was no consistency in their proceedings in thus bringing forward a Coercive Bill to correct and control popular feeling, and a Jury Bill to give it energy and force. Surely they might have stated some good that was to be wrought by this Bill—some mischief which required a departure from the principle of the Established Jury Laws in Ireland. Why was the duty which had hitherto devolved upon the Sheriff taken from him by this enactment? Could any man state that? What had been the faults of the Sheriffs—where were their errors? They were called upon to pass an imputation on every Gentleman in Ireland from whom Sheriffs were taken, because there was a movement of some kind or other in Dublin. Their Lordships ought to maintain some proportion between the proposed enactment and its object. Now, as to Special Juries, he admitted that the present Bill was, in some respects, an improvement on the English Special Jury system; for a qualification was inserted after the name of merchants to the effect that they should not be merchants by retail.
10
In his own experience, under the English Jury system, he had seen two Baronets, a higgler, and a gentleman's servant, on the same Special Jury. A complaint was made to him (Lord Wynford) by the two Baronets; but he told them he could do nothing, for that he could not turn those men out of the Special Juror's box whom the law had placed in it. Nevertheless the Bill itself was sufficient evidence that there was not a sufficient class in Ireland from which to form the Special Juries as there provided. It might, therefore, happen, that though a person ought to be tried by a Special Jury, he might, nevertheless, be in fact tried by a Common Jury. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the Irish to the English system of Trial by Jury. Now, although he highly applauded the alterations in the Criminal Law, which had some years ago been introduced by a right hon. Baronet, and was satisfied, that if full effect had been given to those alterations, crime would, in a great degree, have been put down, and the continuance of capital punishments rendered less necessary, he could not bestow the same commendation on the right hon. Baronet's Jury Bill. The effect of that Bill had certainly been to lower the character of Special Juries in this country. Nevertheless, it might have made Common Juries more like Special Juries, but it also made Special Juries something worse than Common Juries. He was old enough to remember when a Special Jury at Guildhall consisted of persons who were generally so well informed as to be able to teach the Judges on questions of commercial law; but it now happened that, by the accident of the ballot, persons were put on Special Juries at the Guildhall, and called upon to try commercial questions, who knew no more of commercial law than the crier of the court. He was informed, however, by those better acquainted with Ireland than he was, that the persons qualified under the present Bill would not be sufficient to furnish the number required for Special Juries in Ireland, and that it would probably often happen in practice that, when a party in an action tried to get a Special Jury, and underwent all the expenses, he would have a good chance of having his cause tried by a Common Jury. Understanding that the Bill was in opposition to the practical experience of the Irish Judges, and foreseeing that very serious consequences would follow if such a measure became law in the present state of the coun-

11
try, he should move, by way of Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time this day six months.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas surprised at the objections urged by the learned Lord to the principle of the Bill, that it was neither more nor less than a step towards assimilating the legal institutions of England and Ireland. Did the learned Lord see the full force of this objection, that if it was good for anything as an argument, it would be an argument for a Repeal of the Union? What was the ground on which Mr. Pitt proposed and carried the Union? Was it not that it was the best means of assimilating the institutions of the two countries? But, then, said the learned Lord, the English Jury system would lead to abuses in Ireland; it was too democratic in principle for the present condition of that country. Why, if this were admitted as an objection, then Trial by Jury should not have been introduced into Ireland, for it had led to abuses. Why, in fairness, argue from the abuse against the use? If the system had worked well in England, why not extend its advantages to Ireland. But, said the learned Lord, you should first assimilate the condition and moral habits of the two nations. Why, that was the very object contemplated by the Bill. What its supporters wanted was, to induce that confidence in, and respect for, the laws in Ireland, which had so long been the blessing of this country. In Ireland the people in general had no confidence in the law; they, in fact, knew those who administered it but as so many legalized tyrants. The law to them was but a machinery of oppression, instead of protection; hence their approving sympathies were readily extended to its violators or its victims; who, instead of, as in this happier country, being regarded with condemnation and abhorrence, were actually sacred in the eyes of their fellow-villagers. Having, then, no confidence in the ordinary tribunals, and thence no respect for their ordinances, they redressed their own wrongs as they could; and thus revenge—which, according to Bacon, was but a kind of "wild justice"—became invested, in the eyes of the lawless ignorant Irish marauders, with the very attribute, and garb of a virtue. It was absurd to attribute the deplorable working of this mischievous delusion to the "sayings and doings" of Mr. O'Connell and his followers. The grievance lay deeper; it had its source in centuries of misgovernment and oppression; it could only be remedied by inspir-
12
ing the people with a confidence in the laws and institutions to which they owed allegiance. All that the agitators did was to take artful advantage of the unsettled state of the public mind in Ireland, and to stimulate it for their own sordid purpose. But let them convince the people of Ireland that the misgovernment and oppression which had so long laid waste their country was at an end; let every poor Irishman, at present uncertain of the very means of existence, with famine and rapine staring him in the face, the only choice left him being to starve or to emigrate, let him feel that he had a stake in the country—that he Was not to starve in the midst of plenty; let him be taught to have confidence in the law, and tranquillity would not be violated. Let him feel that the laws were meant for his protection, and not as a machinery to oppress him, and they might laugh to scorn all the arts of all the agitators that ever marred the peace and prosperity of any country. Were they surprised at the influence exercised by Mr. O'Connell and his men? The wonder was, that it was not greater, for surely no more fitting tools and ready dupes could be devised than an excitable people goaded on by physical want and political oppression. It was, therefore, because he conceived the present Bill Was calculated to induce confidence in the jury tribunals in Ireland, and thence respect for the laws, that he would give it his best support. To say that it Was democratic in principle was no objection, unless it was clearly shown that it would call into existence, as Jurors, persons whom the Irish would less confide in that the present class of Jurors, and that could not be shown, for the contrary Was the fact.
Lord Ellenboroughpresumed that the view taken of the measure by the noble Baron who had just sat down was different from the view taken of it by the noble and learned Lord at the head of the law in Ireland. To him (Lord Ellenborough) it appeared strange, that having yesterday passed a Bill to take away Trial by Jury from the Irish on the ground of its inadequacy to its purpose, their Lordships were now called on to pass a Bill, which if the noble Baron's understanding of it was correct, was intended to introduce a very inferior class of persons into the Juries of Ireland. In a moral state of a country there could be no greater advantage than to extend the number of persons capable of serving upon Juries, but in a demoralized state it was highly dangerous, as it exposed

13
them to be acted upon either by intimidation Of by partiality. He was quite sure that the noble and learned Lord was anxious for the fair administration of justice, and that he would acquiesce in any Amendment that would improve the operation of the Bill, and more especially that would show the animus with which it was passed. For it appeared to him that there was not so much danger from the actual provisions of the Bill as from a misinterpretation of the motives of those provisions. What he dreaded was, the inference that would be drawn from the enactments, rather than the enactments themselves. If the Bill were passed in quiet times, it might be attended with no inconvenience, but being passed in very unquiet times, he feared its effects might be injurious. What was the ground-work of the Bill? Had any complaint been made of the recent practice with respect to the impanelling of Juries in Ireland? So far from that, the Juries there had conducted themselves in a manner to excite astonishment, and had given more courageous and better verdicts than could have been expected. And why? In consequence of the manner in which the Sheriffs had exercised their functions. The noble Lord referred to the evidence which was given before a Committee of the Lords on that subject, in order to prove the good composition of Juries in Ireland. It was rarely that he differed from his noble and learned friend behind him; but he doubted whether his noble and learned friend was right in supposing, that the Bill originated with Mr. O'Connell; because he held in his hand evidence given on oath by that hon. and learned Gentleman of a contrary tendency. The noble Lord read Mr. O'Connell's evidence, from which he deduced the inference, that even now the Sheriffs in Ireland were not enabled to select a sufficient number of proper persons for Special Juries. And yet, the object of the Bill was to bring inferior persons into Special Juries, instead of superior persons, which were required. He was quite aware, however, that his Majesty's Ministers were committed to the Bill; and he regretted it, because he could see no reason for the measure. But, at any rate, it was desirable that no false inference should be drawn from it. He thought, therefore, that it would be well to provide, that the Sheriff should have the power of adding to the book the names of any persons qualified, but omitted by the Magistrates. For the apprehension was—not that unqualified persons should
14
be admitted—but that qualified persons should be omitted. If the Bill were so amended, that no false inference might be drawn from it, and that its animus might be shown, it might, perhaps, be productive of some advantage.
The Earl of Rodenwished to state the ground upon which, in addition to those already stated by his noble friends near him, he opposed the Bill, which he considered a most dangerous measure. That ground was, that the present Judges of Ireland were unanimously opposed to the principle of the measure—namely, the Juror's Book. He deeply regretted, that the noble and learned Lord had brought it forward. There was no good reason why any change should be made in the present mode of striking Juries in Ireland. But as his noble and learned friend near him had observed, it was a sop given to Cerberus. It was for the purpose of redeeming an unfortunate pledge, although at a risk of the lives and property of his Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland.
Lord Plunkett, in reference to the expression which the noble Lord who had just sat down had repeated, after the noble Lord opposite—namely, that the Bill was a sop to Cerberus, declared himself at a loss to know the meaning of the expression. If he were compelled to guess who was meant by Cerberus, he should say that he supposed Mr. O'Connell. Whether Mr. O'Connell would be a proper guardian for the place of which Cerberus was the keeper, it was for the noble Lords to say; but he (Lord Plunkett) had not introduced that learned Gentleman in any such character to their Lordships. Too much stress bad been laid on the name and influence of that Gentleman, for he could assure their Lordships that he was not to be induced to bring in a Bill because Mr. O'Connell approved of it, or to be diverted from bringing in a bill because Mr. O'Connell disapproved of it. All that he asked himself was, if a measure was a fair and a proper one. But there never was a more wild and ridiculous supposition, than that the present Bill originated in any suggestion of Mr. O'Connell. It was founded on the measure which had been introduced by Sir Robert Feel, who certainly was not very likely to act in concert with Mr. O'Connell. If this were a Bill intended to conciliate Mr. O'Connell, he (Lord Plunkett) found himself in good company in proposing it, for it was not his I Bill alone: it was likewise the Bill of the

15
right hon. Gentleman who lately held the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland, and of the Solicitor-General of Ireland, as well as of Sir Robert Peel. It was not a measure founded on any new principles: it was founded on practical knowledge, for the greatest part of it had already been adopted in England. The noble Baron had taunted them with wishing to assimilate the laws of Ireland to those of England. Did the noble Lord mean to say that it was not right to do so? He (Lord Plunkett) did not mean to say, that a difference ought not to be made in the laws, according to the habits of the country for which they were intended. He allowed it, and acting upon that principle, had made such alterations as he thought necessary, in order to suit the laws in force on the subject in England to the state of Ireland. And would the noble Lord say, that it was improper thus to assimilate the laws of the two countries? For his part, he should consider that it would not only be absurd, but dangerous, to act on a contrary principle. He regretted that noble Lords, in discussing the measure, had not confined themselves to the consideration of the question before them, but had wandered from it in order to make unnecessary attacks on the Government. It had been said, that this was an improper time for the introduction of such a measure; that it was not at the very time when they had passed a Coercion Bill which might abolish trials by Jury in Ireland, they should bring in a Bill for the Regulation of Juries. He could not agree with the noble Lord who had made that assertion. He thought that there could not be a more appropriate time to introduce a measure for the improvement of the administration of justice in Ireland, than at the time when it was found necessary to employ harsh measures for the suppression of the disturbances. It would show the people of Ireland, that the Government, while they were ready to adopt effectual means for the suppression of those disturbances, were likewise ready to improve the administration of the law. It was by a gradual succession of such improvements that they could hope to put an end to that terrible statute, and relieve the people from its operation. The noble Lord had said, that the present measure would destroy the characters of Jurors. Was the noble Lord aware of the qualification which entitled a man to be a Juror as the law at present Stood? What did their Lordships think was the qualification? From the manner
16
in which the noble Lord had expressed himself, they must think that the qualification could not be less than 100 l. at the very least. No; the qualification was, that the claimant should be in possession of a 40 s. freehold And the only difference made by the present Bill was, that the persons qualified, instead of being as formerly, 40 s. freeholders, should be 15 l. leaseholders: a change which he hoped their Lordships would consider an improvement. The noble Lord had likewise said, that the change in the qualification of Jurors was made in opposition to the opinion of the Judges. Now the fact was directly the reverse; for they had, in direct terms, approved of the contemplated change in the qualification. He, therefore, thought that he had a right to complain that the noble Baron should have stated that he had brought forward that measure in opposition to the opinions of the Judges. He had a great respect for the great learning and experience of the Judges of Ireland; but he could not allow that their Lordships were not to legislate on the laws of that country without their consent, or even in opposition to their opinions. That, however, was not the case in the present instance, for they did approve of the measure. He denied another assertion made by the noble Baron—namely, that that Bill had been formerly rejected by the House when brought before them. That was not the case. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of the House; but before the Committee could make any Report the Parliament was prorogued, and was soon afterwards dissolved, by which all the previous proceedings fell to the ground. He now came to the main objection stated by the noble Lord. The noble Lord objected to the clause which took from the Sheriff, who is the sworn officer of the Crown, the privilege of choosing Jurors, which, as the law at present stood, was possessed by the Sheriff. The noble Lord stated very justly and properly, that the amount of property was not the proper criterion by which to judge of the qualifications of a man for that duly. He (Lord Plunkett) did not deny, that there was some difficulty in that part of the measure, and he had taken considerable pains to consider it; and he would then state how he hoped to overcome the objection. By the Bill before them, the Barony collectors were to make returns of the names of all persons within their district who were, by right of property, qualified to sit as Jurors. In England that duty

17
was performed by the Overseers of the Poor, but there being no Overseers of the Poor in Ireland, he could not follow that part of Sir Robert Peel's Bill. The returns were to be made by the Collectors to the Clerk of the Peace, and the Justices were empowered at the Quarter Sessions to strike out the names of all improper persons, and to add the names of such as were entitled to have their names inserted. There was also a clause inserted which specially reserved to the Sheriffs all the jurisdiction which they had as the law at present stood. He thought that the noble Baron would more readily approve of that part of the Bill, when he was told that it was adopted on the suggestion of the Twelve Judges. He would add, that he meant, if the Bill went into Committee, to add a clause, by which retail dealers might be added to the list of Special Jurors, if they proved that they were in possession of the sum of 5,000 l. The noble Lord concluded by saying, that so far from considering it improper to introduce the Bill on account of the Bill which had lately passed that House, the passing of that measure was a strong reason why the present should be adopted.
Lord Wynford's Amendment negatived, and the Bill read a second time.
The following Protest against the Second reading of the Bill was entered on the Journals.
"DISSENTIENT—Because I believe the principle on which a change in the present practice is made, and the provision for forming a Juror's Book, by this Bill, is contrary to the unanimous opinion of the Twelve Judges of Ireland, and will render insecure the lives and properties of his Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland.
"CLANBRASSILL (Roden.)
"WYNFORD.
"KENYON.
"CARBERY."