MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 May 1881)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,
in rising to move— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish jury laws as regards trial by jury in criminal cases, said: My Lords, before I endeavour to state to your Lordships the reasons which have led me to believe that an inquiry into the Irish Jury Laws is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, I wish to make one preliminary observation. I wish to disclaim the idea that I am here to induce your Lordships to affirm, or to affirm myself, that the system of trial by jury in Ireland has broken down in consequence of recent events. I wish to do no more than satisfy your Lordships that these events have shown that there is cause for an inquiry into the working of statutes of comparatively recent origin, statutes which were much discussed in this and the other House of Parliament, and which, as I shall be able to show, were not regarded by many of the highest authorities as affording a final settlement of this important question. I wish also at this stage of my observations to make an admission which may save trouble to many noble Lords who may follow me. I wish to admit at once that if there has been, as I shall show that there has been, a considerable failure of justice in Ireland, if, as was recently stated by the Prime Minister, out of every 33 persons guilty of agrarian crime in that country, one only is brought to justice, while 32 walk abroad unpunished, I wish, I say, to admit that this failure of justice, if we are to have regard to the number of cases in which it has occurred, is to be explained much more by the fact that it is often difficult or impossible to obtain evidence outside the Court than with reference to any proved delinquencies of the juries themselves. This obvious that you may have 12 immaculate jurymen; but you will fail in obtaining a conviction if, o wing to the state of public feeling, evidence as to the facts is not forthcoming. Upon this point, however, I will venture to observe 1034 that, scandalous as may be the deliberate suppression of evidence by those who are in a position to give it, and deplorable as is the failure of justice thus occasioned, the failure is more scandalous still, and the affront to justice more public, and therefore more mischievous, in those cases where evidence has been obtained, but where, from the ignorance or perversity of the jury, the criminal has escaped the punishment due to him. Recent legislation has dealt with those cases where evidence sufficient to secure a conviction is not to be obtained. The inquiry which I ask your Lordships to institute will determine whether there are not other cases in which some remedy is called for to deal, not with the impossibility of obtaining evidence, but with the miscarriage of justice—the returning of improper verdicts, or perhaps of no verdicts at all, owing to the character and surroundings of the persons who, under the present law, are admitted to the jury-box in Ireland. I will not attempt to discuss the origin of the jury system, or to trace its development. I will confine myself to what may be called its modern history in Ireland, which may be said to begin from a period dating back about 10 years. It was in the month of May, 1871, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan), whom I am glad to see in his place, brought this subject under the notice of your Lordships' House. He complained of the existing jury system, and he founded his complaint, in the main, upon two facts. First he complained of the procedure, and then he complained of the existing qualifications for service on the jury. The noble and learned Lord showed to your Lordships that the procedure under which juries were selected was open to objection, upon the ground that the selection was entirely in the hands of the sub-sheriff, and that there were reasons for believing that these officials had in some cases made an improper use of their discretion, with the result that public confidence in the institution of trial by jury had in particular districts been considerably shaken. With regard to the qualifications of the jury, the noble and learned Lord was able to show that the old qualification—a freehold and leasehold qualification—was an obsolete one, and that under it a very limited number of persons were liable to be called on to serve. The noble and 1035 learned Lord introduced to your Lordships' House a measure dealing with these two points in the Jury Laws of Ireland; and he proposed, in the first place, to substitute for the old system of selection by the sheriff, a new system of alphabetical rotation of service, and a rating qualification which he fixed at £30. These proposals were very well received, and the Bill passed rather rapidly through both Houses of Parliament. In the Lower House the rating qualification was lowered to £20. Now, it must certainly be admitted that these changes in the law were attended with some good results. The supply of jurors, which had often been quite inadequate, became sufficient; the burden of service was more evenly distributed, and in particular the suspicion which had undoubtedly in some cases attached to the system of selection by the sheriff was got rid of—the suspicion, I mean, that in some instances the juries had been packed for political or other purposes. The Act of 1871, however, had consequences more far-reaching than these. To use the words of the noble and learned Lord, it revolutionized the character of Irish juries by opening the box to a class which had for generations been jealously precluded from any interference with the Courts of Justice. The Act did undoubtedly have this effect. Nor can it be denied that, if in the composition of a jury we are to have regard exclusively to the degree in which the panel represents popular opinion in the district from which it is drawn, the Act of 1871 was a signal success. It may, however, I think, be fairly questioned whether a jury panel is a good one in proportion as it represents the popular opinion of the moment and of the neighbourhood, and whether intelligence, independence, and integrity are not more necessary in the jury than strong local sympathies. At any rate, before the Act had been in force many months a general complaint arose that popular representation in the jury-box had been carried a little too far, and that while the Act had certainly provided an abundant supply of jurors, it had not been successful in securing the presence in the box of men of independence and intelligence, or in excluding persons who were very much the reverse of intelligent, and totally devoid of independence. This, at all events, is certain, that after the passing of the Act 1036 some very grotesque exhibitions of ignorance on the part of the new jurors, and some very scandalous failures of justice, attracted a large share of public attention to the question. These misgivings found expression in Parliament, and in 1873 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the operation of the new Act. That Committee almost immediately issued a preliminary Report, recommending certain alterations to which effect was given in a temporary Act passed in the same year. Under that temporary Act the qualification was raised, and illiterate persons were precluded from being appointed to serve on juries. That Committee was re-appointed in the following year, and it issued its final Report in 1874. In that Report it was recommended that the qualification should be permanently raised, and that special qualifications should be introduced with a view of bringing a better class of men to serve on the panel. There was also a recommendation that the procedure should be changed in some respects. The recommendations of the Committee of 1874 were not carried out until 1876, when two Bills were passed through Parliament giving effect to them. The qualification is now a freehold qualification of £10 and a leasehold qualification of £20, with a rating qualification of £40 for land, and varying from £20 to £6 for houses. There is, besides, a "special qualification" clause, under which Commissioners, members of public boards, and other persons holding quasi-official positions are liable for service. The noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) had charge of the new Qualification Bill, and he dwelt particularly on the fact that it was calculated to bring on to the jury a better class, whom he described as persons of "station and wealth," who up to that time had not been in the habit of serving on juries. The Acts of 1876 contain the present Irish Jury Law.
I wish for one moment to pass from these Acts to the evidence given before the two Committees which sat in 1873 and 1874. That evidence contained the opinion of many able men on the subject; and it is impossible to read it without feeling that there existed in the minds of these authorities a very serious apprehension that any system founded on the principles of the Act of 1871 would fail to stand the trial of a period 1037 of exceptional difficulty and excitement. That feeling is founded on the anticipation that no merely mechanical selection of the panel under a system of alphabetical rotation would be likely to exclude from the jury-box persons unfit to serve as jurors. Now, when I use the expression mechanical selection of jurors, I am anxious to make my meaning clear, and to do so I will quote a passage from the evidence of Mr. Lefroy, the Chairman of the County of Kildare, who was examined by the House of Commons Committee in 1874. Mr. Lefroy says— I think that the Act making the sheriff as he is now a mere machine is vicious in principle. I think the sheriff should have a certain discretion. I do not mean to say he should have an unlimited discretion, but a discretion with safeguards to prevent its being abused. I am sure it is essential for the due administration of justice, in Ireland especially, that the sheriff should not be bound to pursue the system that the present Act of Parliament suggests, of taking the jurors alphabetically from the jurors' book for his panel. I would in every instance impose on him the duty to return competent men. Now, according to the present system, the sheriff would be bound to return a man in alphabetical arrangement, though he might suspect or even know that he was connected with a Fenian Society. Turning to the general evidence taken by the Committees, I find that five learned Judges were examined before them, and that of these no less than four expressed opinions adverse to the new system, and in favour of a return, not, perhaps, to the old method of selection by the sheriff, but to selection of some kind for the purpose of excluding persons unfit to serve as jurymen. Ten Chairmen of counties were called as witnesses. Of these, all recommended some changes in the law, while five were in favour of recurring to the principle of selection. Upon another point the opinion of some of the witnesses examined deserves serious attention; several of them, gentlemen whose opinion is entitled to the highest respect, expressed their doubt whether any alteration of the qualification would enable you to obtain from the farming class jurors able and willing to do their duty in the trial of agrarian cases under circumstances of local or general excitement. Thus Mr. G. Bolton, Crown Solicitor for the County of Tipperary, says— I would be very sorry to depend altogether on the farming class to supply proper jurors for such a county as Tipperary. In some cases it 1038 was sympathy with the accused, and in some cases the jurors were influenced by being canvassed by the friends and relatives of the prisoner. The common cry now with regard to jurors when they are being called to serve on the jury is—'Go in and free the boys!' I have been told by a very respectable attorney, who has large experience in defending prisoners at the Assizes, that this is a common phrase. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Senior Crown Prosecutor for the County and City of Dublin, expresses similar opinions— So far as my experience goes, in any case of agrarian outrage, or even in the case of a Faction fight or serious assault occurring between farmers or farmers' sons, and so on, there is very little use in prosecuting in a great portion of the South of Ireland. I will not trouble your Lordships with further reference to the evidence of these Committees. I do not think I shall misrepresent it if I say that it discloses the extent of the difficulties under which trial by jury operates in Ireland, and the general opinion of the witnesses that without safeguards not yet devised it was not likely to work satisfactorily in ordinary times, or to stand any exceptional strain.
Now, I may be told that the Acts of 1876 were intended to introduce such safeguards; and I have to ask the House to consider how far they were successful in introducing them. My own impression certainly is, that while the difficulties with which we have to contend are greater than they ever were, the imperfections of the law remain the same, or have only been removed to a slight extent. What, my Lords, were the weak points disclosed by the investigations of 1873 and 1874? They were, I venture to think, those winch arose out of the merely mechanical formation of the panel, and out of the difficulty of excluding improper persons from the jury-box on the one hand, and, on the other, of attracting to it that better class of juror which the noble and learned Lord desired to enlist. The law has been altered; but I believe that I am justified in stating that, in spite of the sheriff's oath which binds him to return "due panels of persons able and sufficient, and not suspected or procured," the formation of the panel is still very much what Mr. Lefroy described it to be. I believe that it is still impossible to exclude from the jury-box persons entirely unfitted to serve as jurors; and I believe, further, that those "persons of wealth and sta- 1039 tion," of whom the noble and learned Lord spoke five years ago, still habitually fail to take their share of service on the jury. I should like to say one word in regard to the abstention of those "persons of wealth and station." How does it come to pass that those persons do not take their share in the public service? The procedure of than Jury Act contemplates the liability to service of every such person, and the imposition of a fine upon any person not in his place, when called on in the Court to serve. That is the theory; the practice, however, is very different. In the first place, from the limited number of those persons of superior position who are in theory liable to serve on petty juries you must deduct all who are liable to serve on Grand Juries or as special jurors. That weeds out a considerable number of the better class of jurors. As to those who are not taken far the Grand Jury, or for special juries, I fear we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that such persons are, as a rule, not very anxious to do their duty as jurors, or to be shut up for hours in the box with farmers and tradesmen for their colleagues, and that many of them make up their minds to shirk service. The simplest way to do so is not to go to Court at all. In such case they are liable to fines, and take their chance of obtaining the remission or reduction of the fines, by sending some plausible excuse for non-attendance. But supposing such a juror does attend the Court. I am told that this is what usually occurs—the juror does not answer to his name when the list is called over; and if a sufficient number answer, a jury is formed and he escapes. If, however, a sufficient number do not answer, the names are called a second time, and fines are imposed on those who do not reply. Now, it is obvious that if the fine is not a very large one it would act as a deterrent only on the humbler class of persons, and that those in a wealthy position would run their chance, knowing almost certainly that by the imposition of a fine the sheriff would be successful in obtaining a sufficient number to make up a jury. Thus, by a sort of natural selection, the better class of jurors are saved from service, and the juries are formed of the residuum of less educated and presumably less qualified persons. This, I believe, is a not 1040 unfair description of the working of the Irish Jury Laws. We should then ask ourselves what sort of strain those laws are now subject to, and how they are standing it. I shall be very reluctant to enter at any length upon a discussion of the unfortunate state into which during the last few months Ireland has lapsed; and I am indeed relieved from dealing with it because, only a few days ago, the subject was discussed in this House at the instance of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Midleton). During that discussion the Lord Privy Seal, a high authority on all that concerns Ireland, said— Noble Lords opposite had not sufficiently weighed the difficulties which any Government in Ireland would have to encounter in dealing with the present widespread combination against the payment of rent. Those difficulties were, in fact, far greater than any which had arisen under the various other organizations which from time to time held sway in the country. The more sanguinary and dangerous Ribbon organization was limited in its area and its numbers; and when certain of its leaders were arrested, as under the provisions of the Westmeath Act, its pourer was broken. The present agitation was more far-reaching in its effects.… From causes lying deep in its history, the peasants and tenants of Ireland were very much in the habit of following each other blindly in any cause, good or bad, which happened to come to the front. The phrase—'We cannot go against the people' was one familiar to everyone acquainted with Ireland. That statement points to the existence of a widespread and dangerous organization, and of complete demoralization caused by it. We have an epidemic of crime—I think there were about 1,000 agrarian offences in the first four months of the year—an epidemic which has shown dangerous recrudescence during the last few weeks—crime of the kind which Sir George Cornwall Lewis characterized as exemplary or preventive crime—crime the effect of which does not begin and end in the criminal and his victim, but which is designed to enforce by its terrors the unwritten law set up against the law of the land. From that crime no class of society can escape. The noble Lord opposite dwelt upon that peculiarity of the present state of things, and pointed out that even the auctioneer at his desk, the trader at his counter, the schoolmaster at his school, the doctor in his dispensary, are followed up by this remorseless terrorism and the social ostracism, which has been successful in terrifying persons who have known 1041 how to hold their own against the mere fear of physical danger. From that state of things are jurors likely to escape unscathed? Can we avoid the conclusion that they, too—drawn, as they are, from the farming class, or from classes intimately associated with it—are liable to the same contagion, the same pressure and prejudice? I do not say this on my own authority alone; I can point to the utterances of Her Majesty's Ministers and of the learned Judges on the subject. I will take, for instance, the description given by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. On the 24th of January that right hon. Gentleman said— The Solicitor General for Ireland has alluded to a very flagrant case. We all remember the outrageous and wicked murder of young Mr. Boyd. Even in that case, my hon. and learned Friend had to apply for the postponement of the trial at Waterford, because out of a panel of 205 jurors only 118 answered to their names. And why? Because they dared not come. There were affidavits produced giving the grounds of their fears. I do not expect hon. Members to pay much attention to my opinion on that point; but what did the learned Judge say at the time? 'These affidavits are not contradicted. No man professing to be acquainted with the state of feeling in this city has come forward and made an affidavit as to his belief that this apprehension does not exist in the minds of the jurors, that this sense of intimidation does not prevail, or in any manner to suggest that the statements of belief expressed in their affidavits are unfounded.' The learned Judge, consequently, felt he must postpone the trial, and it was postponed."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1222–3.] My Lords, I pass from that to a statement made in your Lordships' House by my noble Friend below me (Earl Spencer) on the 1st of March. My noble Friend said— I am afraid that the same terrorism exercised in the way described in the extracts which I have read has been exercised towards witnesses and juries, so as to render it very difficult to obtain evidence in regard to agrarian crimes, and the difficulty of procuring convictions by juries for those offences is enormous.… I have referred to the Judges, and I hold here a very interesting letter, which was written by one of the County Court Judges of a district in Ireland, and which, I think, illustrates very forcibly how completely the law has been paralyzed. The learned Chairman says—'I had to excuse two jurors who were summoned to attend the Quarter Sessions, and who did not attend on the ground that they could not with safety leave their houses; and one of them sent me a copy of a notice alleged by him to have been posted, warning the public not to give him accommodation in any town of the county … These several facts will prepare you for my opinion 1042 that in the present state of the county, particularly in the southern portion, the jurisdiction of my Court is paralyzed.'"—[Ibid., cclviii. 1925–6]. Now, the testimony of Her Majesty's Ministers is confirmed by that of the learned Judges who have recently had ample opportunities of forming opinions upon the operation of the Jury Laws in Ireland. The first case I will mention occurred at Limerick on the 8th of July, 1880, before Mr. Justice Barry, who was, I think, Solicitor General when Lord O'Hagan was formerly Lord Chancellor. According to the newspaper report— A jury having failed to agree to a verdict, and having been confined to their room for several hours, were called out shortly before the rising of the Court. Judge Barry asked them whether they believed a certain portion of the evidence. Several jurors answered in the affirmative. Judge Barry—Then you must find the prisoner guilty of perjury. Foreman—But we cannot agree, my Lord. Judge Barry—It is a great disgrace to you and the country. It is no affair of mine, but it might concern those who may find it necessary to amend the laws of the country. Foreman—We cannot help it; we cannot agree. There are some for and. some against. Judge Barry—The county of Limerick has become a bye-word in Ireland, owing to the failure of justice which takes place, owing either to men being incapable of understanding the evidence, or determined, for some reason or other, not to act on the evidence. Foreman—Some of the jury perfectly understood the evidence, others did not. Judge Barry—You are discharged. Here is another case to which I invite your Lordships' particular attention. Before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, at the Munster Winter Assizes, 1880, a prisoner was tried for posting threatening notices on the piers of the chapel at Tuna, County Clare. Notices had previously been posted and torn down by the police. The chapel was watched, the police being concealed at a distance of 13 paces from the piers, and directly opposite to them. The prisoner was seen to go up to the pier and stop there a short time. The police rushed out; one ran to the pier, and found a freshly-posted notice on it, another caught the prisoner, of whom he had not lost sight for a moment. The prisoner's hands had on them "something like the wet paste used in posting the notice." After an interval of an hour, the foreman intimated that the jury could not agree. His Lordship said— I shall leave the jury in for some time, and if they cannot, or will not, agree, it would be, 1043 in my judgment, with the present panel of the City of Cork, a solemn mockery to try the case again. There is a power outside which is preventing jurymen doing their duty. On the last day of the Assizes his Lordship addressed the Grand Jury as follows:— Our joint labours have not been productive of very large results, and I confess that in the course of these cases I felt myself very considerably disheartened on two grounds. First, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there have been very considerable failures of justice, and failures of justice that I do not hesitate to say have been produced by external influences operating upon some of the jurors. I expressly say some of them, for I think the great body of the jurors were most anxious for the performance of their duties. But no person of sense can fail to see that there were powerful influences operating upon the minds of others in performing their duties. Mr. Hall and gentlemen, this is a very sad thing; indeed, it is one of the most evil things that could happen for the country, for, after all, our civil rights and our criminal liabilities depend upon the fairness of the tribunal that we call the common jury. But the common jurors will not do their duty. If they will let themselves be operated on in the manner described, we have only to leave to those who are wiser than ourselves—the Legislature—to consider whether there should not be some alteration in the system of trial by jury in this country. I will take another case. The following is a report of what took place before Mr. Justice Lawson, at Monaghan, on the 12th March, 1880:— Owen Mahon was charged with shooting an idiot. The jury came into Court, and the foreman informed his Lordship that they could not agree to a verdict. His Lordship—Can I assist you in any way, gentlemen. A Juror—We no of opinion that the prisoner did not intentionally commit the crime. His Lordship—There is no doubt in the world about it. If you come to the conclusion that the prisoner shot the deceased you would return a verdict of guilty, for if you believe the evidence it is ample proof of culpable negligence. Now, gentlemen, retire and consider the matter. A Juror—Would your Lordship give us a drink? His Lordship—I would do so Willingly if I could, gentlemen, but I am sorry I cannot. The jury then retired, and in about 10 minutes returned to the Court with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. A Juror—We have been here three days, my lord, and we should like to get off altogether. His Lordship—Oh, the Assises are over, gentlemen, and if they were not over I would be anxious to have you try another case. At Limerick March Assizes, Denis Murphy was tried before Mr. Justice Barry for forcibly retaking possession of promises from which he had been evicted. The jury retired. After a considerable absence they returned into 1044 Court, when the foreman announced that there was no chance of an agreement. The report proceeded— His Lordship—You say that there is no chance of an agreement, although the prisoner admitted that he had been put forcibly into possession, and that he has retained possession up to this month. Is that so? Foreman—Yes, my Lord. His Lordship—Well, I can only say it is another of the discreditable scenes that we have witnessed during these Assizes. It is now plain that what has been stated all over Ireland is perfectly true, that trial by jury has become a farce, and in the county of Limerick a mockery; and I, as a Limerick man, say with pain, with regret, and with humiliation, that the parties who come into the jury-box in Limerick are perfectly incapable of understanding evidence, or determined, while understanding it, to violate their oaths and not to act upon them. It must be for those who have the guidance of the Legislature of the country to consider this state of things. At the same Assizes James Walsh was indicted on a charge of having conveyed a threatening message regarding the giving up of a farm to a man named Pat Barry, residing near Foynes. The defence was, that the prisoner was obliged, as stated by himself, at the risk of his life to convey the message in obedience to the command of an armed party. His Lordship said that was no defence. The jury acquitted the prisoner. His Lordship said that had climaxed the extraordinary jury scenes which had taken place at the Assizes. Before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, in March, 1881, at Tralee, a prisoner was tried for remaining in forcible possession of a farm, and was acquitted. His Lordship, addressing the jury, said— This is your verdict. All I can say is it is a verdict against the evidence and against your oaths, and if this is persisted in it will sweep away the present jury system. My Lords, I must apologize for the length of these extracts and of my statement; but I was anxious to convince the House that my case rested on no idle apprehensions of my own, but upon facts, to the importance of which we cannot shut our eyes. I have endeavoured to show that, from its very inception, the system of trial introduced by the Act of 1871 has been regarded with considerable suspicion by those best able to judge; that the better class of jurors have habitually abstained from taking their share of service; that the class admitted to serve is very much what it was before 1045 the Act of 1876; that under the arrangement by which the panel is selected mechanically and in alphabetical rotation there are no means of preventing improper persons serving; that a system of terrorism prevails in many parts of Ireland, and that the classes from which the jurors are drawn are peculiarly liable to that terrorism. Ministers of the Crown and Judges have called attention to the grievous miscarriages of justice which have occurred. I submit that I have made out a case for the appointment of the Committee for which I move. I will only add that in agreeing to the appointment of that Committee your Lordships will in no way be parties to the expression of opinion that trial by jury ought altogether to be superseded. I will not suggest to the House what alternative measures might be taken to deal with these difficulties; but I will enumerate, without discussing them, the expedients to which recourse might be had. There might be a further revision of the qualification of jurors; further steps might be taken to enforce the attendance of jurors of a superior class who now neglect their duties; it might be found desirable to intrust some official with the power of purging the jurors' list in the manner formerly adopted by the sheriff under the old Acts; recourse might be had more often to the use of special jurors; the venue might be more frequently changed when excitement prevails; the verdict of the majority might be taken, as is done in almost every country on the Continent in criminal cases. If it were demonstrated that steps of this kind are not likely to mitigate the existing state of things, the further question might arise whether the summary jurisdiction of existing tribunals might or might not be increased, or whether, in some cases, and in exceptional and temporary circumstances, they might not be superseded by tribunals constituted for the express purpose of dealing with agrarian crime. The Motion on the Paper ought to commend itself equally to those who are dissatisfied and to those who are satisfied with the existing state of the law. It is only just to the former that they should have the opportunity of giving expression to their criticism; and I have no doubt that the latter will be glad of the opportunity of defending and vindicating the system in which their belief is possibly unshaken. Both sides, 1046 I am sure, will have but one object in view—namely, to arrive at the truth. It is because I believe that such an inquiry will assist the public in arriving at the truth that I move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD
said, he was glad his noble Friend had done full justice to the merits of the measure introduced by the Lord Chancellor for Ireland (Lord O'Hagan) for the reform of the Jury Laws in Ireland in 1871. Anyone who had looked into the matter, and knew the condition into which the system had fallen at that time, must recognize that the measure of his noble and learned Friend was a most important and valuable reform. The system had fallen into the greatest confusion and weakness. The qualification and numbers of jurymen in most parts of Ireland were quite inadequate to the necessities of the case; in some parts of the country those who were qualified were a mere handful of the population; and in that respect and many others the measure of his noble and learned Friend was a most valuable reform. But the inquiry which the noble Marquess now proposed related to a limited, though most vital, part of the jury system in Ireland—namely, the working of Irish juries under the present law in the case of agrarian crime and in a time of dangerous agrarian excitement; and the Government did not doubt that he had made out a strong case for such an inquiry. The Government were most willing that the inquiry should take place, and would give the noble Marquess all the assistance in their power in conducting it. He therefore thought it unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with many more words. Indeed, he thought it would be inconvenient for any Member of their Lordships' House, and certainly for anyone on the part of the Government, to give expression to their opinion on the Irish jury system in favour of any great change, or against the necessity of any change, in anticipation of this inquiry. He would not attempt to give to their Lordships any such opinion; but he would just remind them of this fact—that two Parliamentary inquiries had taken place since 1871, when the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in- 1047 troduced the subject. Those inquires had been conducted by two most competent Committees, in two successive Sessions, under two different Administrations, and presided over by two Chief Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant—the Marquess of Hartington and air Michael Hicks-Beach. The qualification of jurors, in consequence of these inquiries, was raised, and the last pronouncement on the subject by the last Committee contained an important paragraph to the effect that, in the opinion of the Committee, it was indispensable to secure absolute impartiality in the formation of the jury panel. But although this was the latest pronouncement on the subject, there was no reason why, in the light of recent events, there should not be another inquiry. He only trusted the result of that inquiry might be to enable the Irish jury system to sustain better than it did at present the burden which it was called upon to bear.

LORD DENMAN
said, that he thought this was not a time for inquiring as to trial by jury in Ireland, as the Government had full powers, and there was a challenge to the array and as to individuals, and a change of venue might be ordered. The Association for the Amendment of the Law would meet in Dublin in October, and could obtain information and dispassionately consider the subject.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
said, he would remind their Lordships of the fact which had been omitted by the noble Marquess, that out of 40 charges of murder there bad been only one conviction. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) stated, only a few nights back, that more crimes of a barbarous character had been committed in Ireland than had ever disgraced any savage country. It was therefore full time that something should be done, either through an improved jury system or in some other way, to improve the present unfortunate state of things. Crimes of a serious character were doubled within the last month; and, though there were large bodies of military and police in Ireland, they were not allowed to defend themselves, much less the law. The Government had passed Acts to preserve the peace in Ireland, but they were not enforced; and he was sorry to see that Mr. Parnell had shown he was more powerful than the Government, and 1048 could carry out his promises while they could not carry out theirs. The Primo Minister himself stated that crime occurred coincidentally with the Land League meetings; yet those meetings were allowed to continue, spreading terror throughout the country. If the Common Law of the land had been enforced, and had these illegal meetings been put down, Ireland would not have been in its present state. He feared it would be of little use to try remedial measures such as those proposed, which only robbed Peter to pay Paul; there must be a fair administration of the law. If the law had been enforced in Ireland as it was enforced in Great Britain, the present state of things in Ireland would not have existed. It was only weakness to be playing fast and loose in this matter. With regard to Griffiths' valuation, it was very unequal; it only took into consideration the value of the land, without regard to its locality. It put no special value on town parks, though their position often increased their value five-fold, or of land on the sea shore, where abundance of seaweed supplied the necessary manure. Yet, unequal as it was, it was the best valuation that existed. Under the proposed Land Bill all rents were to be settled by a Court, on application of tenants; and, pending such valuation, no proceeding for enforcing rent could take place. There were 600,000 tenants, and doubtless, under the Land League organization, these would nearly all apply. The Court, or Courts, would be blocked—decisions could not be given for years, and if they won the case rents would be abolished. Unless this were the intention of Her Majesty's Government, they must settle some basis of rent pending these decisions.

§ LORD O'HAGAN
said, he entirely agreed with the observations of his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) as to the propriety of appointing a Committee. He also agreed with his noble Friend that, pending the appointment of the Committee, this was not an occasion for discussion. He would, therefore, reserve any observations he might have to make on the subject.