Sitting of 9 March 1825

PERUVIAN MINING-COMPANY'S BILL.
Mr. Greenbrought in a bill to enable the Company to sue and be sued in the name of their Secretary.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that when the second reading should be fixed, he would oppose it by all the means in his power. The more he had examined the subject, the more he was convinced, that the scheme of the persons concerned in the present bill was wholly impracticable. The Pasco mountains were 13,500 feet above the level of the sea, and the experiment of mining there had been tried over and over again, without success. He knew nothing of the individuals concerned, but he took upon himself to say, that he should be able to convince the House that it ought not to encourage such an undertaking.
The bill was read a first time.

METROPOLITAN FISH-COMPANY BILL.
Lord John Fitzroy Lord John Fitzroy moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Calcraftobserved, that this was one of the many delusive schemes of the presentday. About sixteen years ago, it fell to his lot to oppose a bill, which, under the pretence of employing the boys of the Marine Asylum, went to supersede the trade of industrious persons who got their living by selling fish. He undertook then to show that the bulk of fish sold at the rate of 1d. per pound died; he would undertake now to show, that the great bulk of the fish brought to the London market, was sold at seven farthings per pound. Could any company supply fish at so cheap a rate as that? In the prospectus of this company it was stated, that the Dutch engrossed nearly the whole of the British fisheries. This proved the ignorance of those who undertook, if they could catch 300,000 l., to furnish all London with fish. The Dutch were only engaged in the turbot and eel fisheries. In all other descriptions of fish the British
966
market was supplied by British fishermen. At this end of the town, no doubt the consumer paid high for his fish; but, were delicacies and dainties to be selected, except at a high price? If those who were nice in the supply of their table would have nothing but the very finest fish, ought they not to pay for it? The new company proposed to supply the poor with fish. Could the poor be supplied with fish at a lower rate than fish was now purchased at at Billingsgate market? The poor were dainty with respect to fish: they would never have it but when it was at the highest price. If it was a low-price they immediately fancied it could not be good. He objected, however, to the principle of this bill, calculated, as it was, to injure the regular fishermen, who were entitled to protection and encouragement. He was informed that the first step which the company had taken was to employ an agent at a salary of 2,000 l. This was, to be sure, an economical mode, of going to work! He would not oppose the second reading of the bill; but when he met the supporters of it in the committee, he would dare them to a proof of the statements contained in their prospectus.
Lord John Filzroysaid, he had no private interest in the success of the measure.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, that the company might do good; but harm, he thought, they could not do.
Mr. Curteisobserved, that the Dutch fishermen did not confine themselves to taking eels and turbot, but also brought to the English market flounders, cod, and other fish.
Mr. J. P. Grantopposed the bill. He thought the House could not do any thing more injurious to the regular supply of the market, than to give a chimerical company advantages which were not possessed by the regular fishermen.
The bill was read a second time.

JURIES REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Secretary Peelrose to bring forward his motion for consolidating and amending the laws relative to Juries. It was impossible, he apprehended, to urge any valid objection against clearing up what was obscure, and consolidating what was scattered over the whole Statute-book, in the laws relating to Juries. There were no fewer than 85 statutes relating to the impanel ling of Juries. What possible ob-

967
jection could three be to uniting all these statutes in one clear and intelligible act? He would mention one or two statutes passed within the first ten years of the reign of queen Anne, as a specimen of the confusion and incongruity which prevailed with regard to the laws on this subject. One of these acts relating to Juries was also entitled an act for the more easy recovery of small debts, and for amending the law relative to lands held in coparcenary. It was surely more consistent with common sense to separate the laws relative to juries from this incongruous mixture, and to consolidate them into one simple statute. Another act relating to juries, the 10th of queen Anne, was also an act for defining the powers of magistrates in certain cases, for building county gaols, and for preventing apothecaries from filling certain parish offices. Some of the provisions relative to juries, which were still in force, were mixed up in the same statute with provisions relative to other subjects, which had long since been repealed. One of these acts, for instance, was also an act relating to vagrants, which was no longer in force, and an act for prohibiting the exportation of leather. Many of these acts he proposed to repeal altogether; that, for instance, relating to the attaint of jurors, in case of bribery or improper conduct; an act which, as Blackstone had observed, was coeval with wager by battle, and which, in the present enlightened age, ought, in his opinion, to share the fate of its contemporary. He would just state to the House the penalties which this act inflicted on the offending juryman. He was to lose his liberam legem; he was to become infamous for life; he was to forfeit his goods and the profits of his lands; his wife and children were to be cast out of doors; his house was to be razed; and his fields and meadows destroyed. In these days, he trusted, there was a better pledge for the integrity of jurors, than any penal statute of this revolting description. This statute had never been enforced during a period of two hundred years. It was just possible that it might again be brought into activity, as the law of wager by battle had been, within the last twenty years; and as the latter barbarous remnant of antiquity had been judiciously abolished, he proposed to take the same course with respect to the law for attainting juries. At the same time, if it could be proved to him that any benefit was likely to result from
968
this law remaining on the Statute-book— if it could be shown, that, in the present century, it really was a beneficial and practical control on the conduct of jurors, he should be perfectly ready to re-consider his opinion. The alterations which he proposed to make in the law relating to juries were very slight. He should make no new experiments with regard to the phraseology; for instance, where the ancient phraseology was clear and expressive, he should leave it untouched; where it was absurd and contradictory, he felt it to be consistent only with the civilization and improvement of the present age, to propose an amendment. The chief alterations which he proposed to make were these:—In the first place, with respect to the mode of summoning common juries, he should propose an alteration in the formation of the lists. Those lists were at present returned in parishes by the petty constable—an individual who was frequently unable to read or write, and too often open to seduction. Thus he had as certained that the petty constable, in consideration of some trifling gratuity, often omitted the names of persons who were best qualified to serve on juries, and inserted the names of others who were less qualified to discharge that duty. He proposed to devolve the duty of forming the lists of persons qualified to serve on juries on the churchwarden and overseers of the parishes, who, from their situation, were much better able to ascertain the qualifications of the parishioners, and who, from their respectability, were not liable to the objections which existed against the petty-constable. He should also require a much more distinct enumeration of the qualifications and residence of persons liable to serve on juries, than was made at present. He should propose also, that the appeals of persons whose names might be improperly returned or omitted, should be received at a petty sessions of magistrates, and not at the quarter sessions, where the magistrates had already sufficient business on their hands. He proposed, also, to extend the number of persons qualified to serve on special juries in counties. Under the existing law, none but persons designated "esquires" could serve on special juries in counties; and in one remarkable case, he alluded to the trial of major Cartwright, only fifty-four persons, qualified to serve on special juries, exclusive of the grand jury who found the bill, were

969
returned out of the whole county of Warwick. He should propose that in counties, as in the city of London, all persons returned, as merchants and bankers, should be liable to serve on special juries.—He should now advert to the most important part of this subject; namely, the formation of special juries for the purpose of trying causes. It was his intention to propose an arrangement which, he trusted, would be perfectly satisfactory, to all parties, both to those who thought the present mode of striking special juries defective in theory and liable to abuse, and to those who, while they admitted that the theory was defective, thought that no practical abuse could arise from it, in consequence of the great respectability of the officers on whom the duty of striking special juries devolved. He should propose, that the names of all the persons qualified to serve on special juries in London and Westminster, and in every county of England, should be inscribed in a book, describing the rank and qualifications of each, and that to the name of each person, alphabetically arranged, should be attached a number of the arithmetical progression 1, 2, 3, 4, &c.; so that for example, if there were a hundred persons qualified to serve on special juries in a particular county, their names should be alphabetically arranged, and the arithmetical progression 1, 2, 3, &c. up to 100, should be attached to those names in their alphabetical order. He should then propose, that a number of cards equal to that of the persons qualified to serve should be numbered with the same arithmetical progression 1, 2, 3, &c. to the extent of the whole list. The cards so numbered were to be put into a box or glass, and 48 of them were to be drawn out by an officer; these 48 were to be reduced to 24, in the present mode, and the names of the 24 called over in court in their alphabetical order [hear, hear!]. It would, of course, be admitted, that that mode of trial was to be preferred which would be most satisfactory to both plaintiff and defendant; and therefore it was proposed that, in civil cases, if both plaintiff and defendant should signify their assent in writing, that the officer should proceed in the old mode, then that course might be followed. It was important that the consent should be written, to prevent future differences. It should also be provided in civil cases, that when one jury had been selected qualified to try com-
970
mercial causes, if other parties having causes to be tried should signify their mutual assent, the same jury might proceed. To this course he saw no objection. But unless both parties consented, the law would be of no avail. This arrangement would not be allowed in political cases; in them there must be a ballot of the special jurors. The details of the measure would be better understood when the bill should be printed; at present, he only meant to propose that it should be read a second time pro forma, committed, and the blanks filled up, in order that its provisions might be fully understood. If it should be found, that benefit resulted from this measure, he hoped the House would not stop there with the principle of consolidation. It was impossible to contemplate the vast mass of laws in our Statute-books, without feeling, that great advantage might be derived from extending the principle. The criminal code should be the first; for it was of the last importance, that the subjects of this realm should have a facility in knowing the laws which they were bound to obey. Many amendments might be made in the laws respecting forgery and larceny, which abounded with so many anomalies. The hon. and learned gentleman (Dr. Lushington) had devoted much of his time to the consolidation of some of our laws; and indeed it was only by the intervention of able professional men, that such a desirable object could be accomplished. He had himself been much occupied with this measure, and had also the assistance of eminent members of the legal profession, who were, of course, much better qualified to treat such a subject than he could pretend to be, and he trusted, that however necessary, in other cases, a commission in this particular instance, might be dispensed with, as he trusted the measure would be found satisfactory. With respect to the laws regarding forgery, they filled one entire volume; and he thought that, in that case, a commission would be desirable; for he was sure that, neither the lord chancellor, the attorney-general, nor any professional man, could devote sufficient time for the minute investigation which was necessary. After the experience he had had of those eighty-five statutes respecting juries, he was persuaded, that, by carrying the principle of consolidation further, great improvement would be done to the laws; much con-

971
fusion would be avoided; and many anomalies removed. He should therefore move for leave to bring in a bill "to consolidate the Laws relating to Juries, and for the regulation of Special Juries."
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was desirous to take the earliest opportunity of expressing the high satisfaction he felt at the very important measure about to be introduced by the right hon. Secretary. With respect to that part of the proposed plan which affected the selection of juries, it could not fail to be productive of the greatest benefit; for nothing could be more injurious to the administration of justice, than even the existence of a doubt as to the purity of the mode in which it was administered. The decisions of courts of justice should be beyond suspicion, in order that the desirable end might be attained, that a conviction should receive the approbation of the public; and, from the statement of the right hon. gentleman, he was disposed to think, that the provisions of the bill were the best qualified to accomplish the proposed end. He apprehended that the regulation as to the selection of juries would extend to Exchequer prosecutions. This would be of the greatest advantage; and as to the general question of consolidation, he quite concurred in the principle of appointing a commission, and of proceeding step by step. In the committee, of course, an opportunity would be afforded of making any alterations that might be found necessary; and he felt a strong assurance, that the measure would be most satisfactory when reduced to the best test of utility-practice. In all his attempts on this subject, his principle, and he trusted the principle that would be pursued, was, to consolidate the laws precisely as they stood. No man had a right to come down to that House with a measure professing consolidation merely, when, in point of fact, its object was to alter and amend. If the slightest alteration were proposed, it should be distinctly pointed out to the House, and in any consolidation they should adhere, as closely, as possible, to the old form of the act of parliament, with reference to decided cases, in order that the law might not be at sea until there were fresh adjudicated cases. The measure should have his full concurrence and support.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that every man who valued the liberties of his country, must be delighted at the introduction of this
972
bill. It would be the greatest and most salutary reform that could be found in our Statute books.
Mr. Humesaid, that, having years ago called the attention of the House to this important subject, he could not but express the satisfaction he felt at the proposed measure. But, it appeared to him, that it would be a very great advantage, if the same principle could be applied to what was called the Common Law, but which he considered tantamount to no law at all.
Mr. Peelsaid, that, as far as was practicable, the common law had been consolidated by statute; but the hon. member must himself concur in the impropriety of enacting by statute that which was regulated by common law. Nothing, in his mind, could be more inexpedient than to interfere with the ancient institutions of the country: for instance, who would think of enforcing, by statute, that a jury should consist of twelve persons, and that their verdict must be founded on unanimity. It would be most unwise to interfere with those sacred usages, which had been uniformly recognized as the law of the land.
Mr. Brightexpressed his entire approbation of the bill, and thought the right hon. Secretary entitled to the thanks of the country for introducing it. There was one improvement which he would suggest to the right hon. gentleman; namely to introduce a clause to prevent the separation of juries, in any case until they came to a decision. Great inconvenience had already arisen from a contrary practice. He would not allow a jury to be discharged even with the consent of the parties. He did not know whether it was intended to consolidate the laws on high treason in this bill; but if it was, he hoped that none of the privileges at present enjoyed by defendants in cases of high treason would be taken away. Among other improvements which he should wish to see take place, was that of obliging the Crown lawyers, in cases of high treason, to assign a cause for their challenges at the time of making them. On the whole, he looked upon the bill as likely to be of vast benefit to the country. It embodied very many of the improvements which had long ago been so ably pointed out by that great man, lord Bacon.
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION FROM KILKENNY.
Lord Clifdenpresented a petition from the Protestant Inhabitants of Kilkenny, in favour of the Roman Catholics' Claims. This petition, his lordship said, was the petition of the greater number of landholders in the county. He could not avoid expressing his satisfaction at the progress which this question was making. Whether now carried or not, he was sure it was obtaining more consideration than it had ever done before. There was great reason to hope that this question, which certainly would be interminable, as long as the Catholics were excluded from the privileges of the constitution, would, at last, come to an end. From this he argued nothing but good. He remembered the time when great commercial jealousies existed between the two countries. These were all happily done away; and there was not one man of sense in the country, who did not wish to see Ireland as flourishing as England. He was sure, if the thing were wisely done, it would be effected without the least danger to the church. Upwards of forty years had elapsed before the union between Scotland and England was perfect; and now the people of the North

965
and the South were as one. He hoped soon to see the same with regard to Ireland. Then would that country, instead of being a thorn in our side, and a millstone about our neck, be, like our right arm, ever ready to shield us from harm.
"God grant this may soon arrive."
Ordered to lie on the table.