Lords Sitting of 21 March 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Earl FITZ-WILLIAM, an Account from his Majesty's Consuls abroad, of the Prices of Cora in the different Markets, up to the latest period they could be made out.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of ROCHESTER, Lord BEXLEY, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, Marquess of STAFFORD, Lord KING, Lord SUFFIELD, and the Bishop of EXETER, from a Number of Places in England and Scotland,.—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord KIND from Stayley Bridge, for Emancipation of the Jews; from two Places in Ireland, for the Abolition of Tithes; and from Chichester, for allowing Dissenters to celebrate Marriage in their own Chapel.—By Earl FITZ-WILLIAM, from Somersham with the Soak; and by Lord MELBOURNE, from Melbourne, for the Abolition of Slavery.

JURIES (IRELAND).
Lord Plunkedrose, pursuant to notice, to bring under the consideration of their Lordships a Bill, which, in a form not very different, had already been before the House. Their Lordships would recollect, that a Bill, the same in its general principle, had been sent up to them in a former Session from the other House of Parliament—that that Bill had been read a first time, and that, upon proceeding to discuss it on the second reading, it was thought that it should be referred to a Committee, before the House proceeded any further; and it was also thought expedient that a reference should be made to the Judges in Ireland, with a view to ascertain their opinions on the principle and details of the measure. Those learned persons gave their opinions on the Bill, and recommended some alterations in it, to which he would presently call the attention of their Lordships; but he should observe, at the same time,

903
that the Judges of Ireland expressed a general concurrence in the greater part of the provisions of the Bill, though, as he had said, they differed in some points from the framers of it. As the opinion of these learned persons was not given in consequence of any formal reference made by the House to them, he could not lay it before their Lordships as an official document, but he had furnished a copy of that opinion to several noble Lords opposite, and when the Bill came to be read a second time, they would have the means of being guided as far as they thought it expedient, by the opinion to which he had been referring. As he could not suppose that their Lordships intended to discuss the Bill on its first reading, it would not be then necessary for him to do more than call their attention to the leading points of the Bill. One of its objects was, to consolidate all the laws relating to the qualification and return of Jurors to serve in Ireland—to repeal all existing statutes that interfered with the provisions of the intended measure—and to combine them all into one law. It was also an object of the Bill to assimilate the law of Ireland as much as possible to that of England—at least to assimilate them as completely as the different situations of the two countries would permit. The noble Lord then stated the qualification proposed by the Bill, namely, a person to be between the ages of twenty-one and sixty, and to be possessed of 10 l. a-year, arising out of lands, for a county Juror; and having a house or tenement in a town of not less than 20 l. a-year for a town Juror. The qualification required for Jurors of counties of towns the same as that for the Jurors of counties. In England, the noble Lord continued, under the Act of Sir Robert Peel, the qualifications of Jurors were ascertained by the Overseers of the Poor; but, as in Ireland, they had no officers which were exactly analogous to the parish overseers, they endeavoured to find the best substitute they could, and those were the barony collectors. The Judges certainly thought that those collectors were not the fittest persons for the purpose, but they had not suggested any better; and he confessed, that, so far as he had been able to see, none better could be found; and he was sure that, upon consideration and inquiry, the House would see that better could probably not be found. According
904
to the former Bill, provision was made that the persons making out the lists should post them upon the doors of churches and chapels. Now, that he thought objectionable, and had, therefore, not included it in the Bill which he then meant to propose; but he did intend, that the Justices at Sessions should have authority to ascertain the qualifications of the persons placed upon the Jury lists. With all these alterations, however, he begged their Lordships to recollect that the Bill would still not do away with the privileges of the Sheriffs, in reference to their selections from the panels, for it would only go to furnish them with the means of forming their panels. Their Lordships would also observe, that the Bill was by no means the first interference which had taken place with the functions of Sheriffs, there having been several precedents, as he could readily show them, for alterations similar to those which he intended to introduce. He next came to the subject of Special Juries. With respect to them, he proposed, that in all criminal cases, the Courts might, on affidavits of either the prosecutor, or the person prosecuted, direct a Special Jury to be impanelled, which was adopting one of the features of Sir Robert Peel's Bill. According to the Bill which he intended to introduce, a list must be made out, with a view to a Special Jury, which should include all sons of Peers, being qualified, all Baronets, all Knights, all Magistrates, and persons who had served on Grand Juries, and all other persons possessing property of a certain amount; and if those were not found sufficient, recourse might be had to the books of the Sheriff, in order to supply a competent number. He ought to observe, that lists of those qualified to serve on Special Juries were to be made out in alphabetical order, the names were to be numbered, and the numbers were to be cut off and thrown into a box. From that box, the Sheriff or his assistant was to draw forth forty-eight numbers, and the names answering to those numbers were to be the Special Jurymen, the number being afterwards reduced to twelve, according to the usual practice. The alteration which he contemplated would have the effect of assimilating the Irish to the English law in this particular, and, as he thought, of effecting a great improvement at the same time. He had but one further observation to make, which was, that heretofore

905
the payment for Special Juries was at the rate of one pound for each Juror; but now he proposed that any sum not exceeding five pounds might be awarded by the Court. He might observe, that the Judges did not approve of this clause, they thinking that there ought to be no limitation. He should content himself by merely laying the Bill on the Table, reserving any further observation until it came before them for a second reading.
The Earl of Wicklowfelt considerable satisfaction in perceiving that the Bill had been prepared in conformity with the recommendation of the Judges.
Read a first time.