The Lord Chancellor, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill for making further regulations for more effectually securing the correctness of the Jurors' Books in Ireland, said that this was a subject of great importance. Everything connected with obtaining a fair, full, and impartial selection of juries, must be of great interest to every person concerned in the due administration of justice. The difficulties he had to deal with he would state in a few words. By the Statute of the 3rd and 4th William IV., c. 91, the high constables and collectors in the different districts in Ireland were ordered once a year to prepare lists of all persons qualified to serve on juries, and to send those lists to the clerk of the peace of each county, which lists were to be corrected by the magistrates in petty sessions, and signed by them. The parties were then to make out one general list from all those lists so handed in, and deliver the same to the clerk of the peace, who was to copy them into a book, and deliver that book to the sheriff, which was to be used by him as the jury-book for the ensuing year. He proposed to repeal the latter part of this enactment, and instead thereof to enact that when such list should be duly corrected by the justices present at such special sessions, the lists should be marked in their presence with the successive numbers 1, 2, 3, &c, according to the number of such lists; and when the lists, so corrected and numbered, should be allowed and signed by them, the justices should cause one general list to be made out therefrom, containing the names of all persons whose qualification should have been so allowed, arranged according to rank and property, which general list should be compared by the presiding justices at such sessions with the lists so allowed, signed, and numbered, and should be corrected by such justices (if necessary) by reference to such lists, and be made to correspond therewith; and the presiding justices at such sessions should sign the general list at the foot of each page, and deliver the same, together with the lists so signed, to the clerk of the peace, who should thereupon cause the same to be copied, in the same order in which the names should be arranged in the general list, in a book, and should deliver 4 the said book to the sheriff, which book should be called "The Jurors' Book." This provision, he thought, was quite sufficient to prevent all mistakes which might occur in the making up of the one general list from the several particular lists. Notwithstanding, however, all these precautions in securing an accurate transcript of the particular lists into the general list, which was afterwards to be copied into the book to be delivered to the sheriff, it was possible that some error might creep in: to correct this, he proposed to enact that the clerk of the peace should cause jury lists, so allowed and signed, and the general list, to be placed among the records in his office, and allow the same to be inspected at all reasonable times, without fee, by any person who, by the 3rd and 4th William IV., would be entitled to peruse the copies of any of the jury lists delivered to the clerk of the peace by the high constable and collector or collectors. He had also provided, that if the Jurors' Book should be found to contain any name which should not be contained in any one of the jury lists, or if any name which should be contained in any one of such lists, should not appear in such book, it should be lawful for Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, or any Judge of the said Court, upon complaint thereof made to the said Court or Judge, to order the said sheriff or under-sheriff and the clerk of the peace respectively, to produce the said Jurors' Book and the said jury lists to the said Court or Judge; and if upon inspection of the said book and jury lists any such error should be found in the said Jurors Book, the said Court or Judge should order the same to be amended, and such amendment should be forthwith made and signed by the said sheriff, or under-sheriff and clerk of the peace, in the presence of the said Court or Judge. He thought he had thus sufficiently provided for insuring a correspondence between the Jurors' Book and the particular lists which were to be corrected by the magistrates, who, in correcting them, would act judicially, and without appeal. If any suggestion could be made for giving additional security against error, and of making the Jurors' Book correspond with the original lists of the high constables and collectors, than what this Bill provided, he should be glad to adopt it. He thought it proper to mention that, since the Bill was printed, a communication had been made to him by a gentleman who acted a part of some 5 notoriety in the case out of which this Bill had arisen — he meant Mr. Pierce Mahony. He thought, as far as his judgment went, that the provisions of the Bill would be effectual for the object sought; and the only provision he suggested was this: according to the present law the collectors were authorized, at the public expense, to print and circulate a certain number of their lists; but this was not compulsory, it was only permissive. What Mr. Mahony required was, that the collectors should be required to print their lists. He (the Lord Chancellor) was ready to adopt that suggestion when the Bill went into Committee.
Lord Campbellthought the Bill of his noble and learned Friend was calculated to be effectual for the purpose he desired. At the same time, he was of opinion, that it did not go far enough for all the purposes that it was desirable should be effected. It did not reach the point of law relating to the challenge of the array. Their Lordships were aware that it was a privilege given by the Common Law of England to a party put on his trial that he might challenge the array of the jury; but the Judges were of opinion that the right of challenge could only be exercised in the case where unindifferency or misconduct of the sheriff could be alleged. Lord Denman, on the contrary, was of opinion, and he (Lord Campbell) concurred with him, that the law was different from what the majority of the Judges had laid it down. It appeared to him (Lord Campbell) that a more general enactment was necessary to meet this point; for there were many other cases in which parties might fairly challenge the array besides those of unindifferency or misconduct on the part of the sheriff.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the challenge to the array could only arise where there was an error between the lists signed by the magistrates and the Jurors' Book; and he thought sufficient precaution had been adopted to prevent any such error. He was, however, willing to meet any particular case in which an error might have occurred, which should not necessarily challenge the whole jury list for the assizes.
§ Lord Denmanthought it possible that there might be error in the lists, besides that arising from unindifferency or misconduct 6 of the sheriff. He would suggest that copies of the lists and books should be kept in more than one place, to guard against alterations being made in them. There was another point he wished to advert to. He did not see why this should not be made a general measure for the whole Empire.
The Lord Chancellorconsidered that sufficient security was afforded against any alteration in the lists, by requiring the magistrates to sign them. With respect to what had been said by his noble and learned Friend respecting the propriety of making the measure general, he had to intimate the intention of the Government to introduce a measure for England, framed in a corresponding spirit.
§ Bill read 2a.