should be decided in a court of law or in that House; for his own part, he should decidedly enter his protest against any reference to a court of law, as that House was the only fit place for the decision.

Mr. Peel said, he had not had time to give the subject all the attention it deserved. To carry an inquiry back to about the year 1300, when the English law was first introduced, required some consideration; and he had not felt himself prepared at once to give an opinion on it. In a few days he should be possessed of more information on the subject. Anxious to gain all that could be obtained, he had written to the commissioners now sitting in Ireland, to whom a reference had been made with respect to the duties of the office in question, desiring them to suspend the business they were at present engaged in, and to proceed immediately to investigate the claim thus set up. He had that day received a letter from the commissioners, in which they informed him they would forthwith comply with his wish. The result of their proceedings would, he trusted, place the question in a proper light. There might be a necessity for examining many things concerning it which would require some time; what fees, for instance, were exigible from suitors-whether they might be reduced or abolished-what duty was to be done by the deputy, and how he was to be paid; and, in short whether the office should be abolished altogether, or merely regulated.

Horner rose to call the attention of the House to a subject of great importance with regard to the administration of justice in Ireland. He was a member of a committee last session appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the grand juries in that part of the empire. It appeared from the persons this committee examined, and the documents laid before it, that the very extraordinary practice prevailed in the proceedings of the grand juries, of finding bills of indictment upon the mere depositions obtained from witnesses by the magistrates, without any resort to parole evidence. This practice very much excited his surprise. He was not before aware, nor were many of his friends who acted with him in the same committee, that such a deviation from the law of the country, existed to any extent, or that it could be general. Such, however, was the practice over the greater part of Ireland. It was not of recent growth; it was almost as ancient as it was universal. It had prevailed so long, that the records of the courts scarcely reached back to a time when it did not exist. The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to state what the practice really was, when it appeared, that after an examination taken by the magistrates upon oath, there was no other examination of witnesses till the accused was put upon his trial before the petty jury. The depositions taken before the magistrate were the grounds upon which the grand jury proceeded in finding a bill of indictment. The prosecutor laid these depositions before the grand jury, and upon this evidence obtained his Bill. No witness was called before them, or examined in support of the alleged charges. They had nothing to guide their judgments but the written evidence that the magistrate communicated. He thought it almost unnecessary to mention how different this was from the practice that prevailed in England in similar circumstances, and before a jury of this kind. Not only the members of the House knew this, but the least informed individual of the country. Before the English grand juries the witnesses of the prosecutor were sworn and examined. The depositions taken in the first instance before the magistrate were studiously withheld, and never allowed by the judge, unless in the case of any of the witnesses having died in the interval between their examination and the indictIRISH GRAND JURIES BILL.] Mr. ment of the prisoner. The written evi

Mr. Rose said, that if the grant of this office belonged to the chief of the court, the chancellor of the exchequer must have the disposal of it, and not the chief baror. Mr. Brougham said, it was of no consequence to whom the right of nomination to the office belonged, for the report of the finance committee which was supported by the unanimous resolution of the House, had determined, that it should cease after the death of the then occupier. The resolution went virtually to an abolition of the situation, since it provided, that the deputy should do the duty, without any addition to his present salary.

Mr. Peel denied that there was a resolution of the House, of the nature stated by the hon. and learned gentleman.

Mr. Brougham said, it was a resolution of a committee of the whole House. He had consulted the journals when the subject was last before them.

magistrates. He was convinced that the imperial parliament could do much with regard to the removal of those and other grievances. The present one, which he had explained, would be easily removed. He was entitled to say, that there was no grand jury at all in that country, as, except in

dence upon which the magistrate com- dence upon oath, and the best evidence mitted the prisoner for trial was put into that could be procured. The practice. the hands of the judge, and never allowed was different. There was no evidence by him to be inspected by the grand jury, taken by the Irish grand juries; they satisexcept upon the contingency he had men- fied themselves of the grounds of an intioned, and at the discretion of the judge, dictment, without resorting to parole tesupon proper application to him for that timony. Here the hon. and learned genpurpose. This practice in our criminal tleman read extracts from the minutes of proceedings was well understood, and evidence taken by the committee, on whose never deviated from. There had been report he grounded his proposed measure, disputes upon the manner of taking evi- with the view of showing the irregular dence before a grand jury, and the extent manner in which the Irish grand juries to which the examination should go, but conducted their proceedings, and the nenever concerning the propriety of re- cessity of recurring to a better system. quiring parole testimony before a bill of He then proceeded to state the object of indictment could be awarded. There was his bill. He paid high compliments to even a pretension set up, that not only the the judges who administered the law in witnesses of the prosecutor should be exa- Ireland. The bar, he said, was as much mined, but those likewise for the defence. distinguished for ability, probity, knowAll were agreed, that witnesses must be ledge, and eloquence, as any bar in the examined before the grand jury upon oath world; but there were some grievances of in England; and there was another point which he had reason to complain, as the equally clear and admitted, that the com-mode of electing sheriffs, and nominating mon law of England and Ireland were the same. In determining what was proper to be done, therefore, we had only to inquire what was the law of England; and though an opposite practice had been long established in the sister kingdom, the length of usage was no sufficient bar against a return to the punctual adminis-particular cases, they had no other evidence tration of it. Even in Ireland, the usage was not uniform for the grand jury to be guided by the evidence taken by the magistrate upon commitment. In some counties, as Wexford for instance, the practice did not prevail; and in others there were departures from it. Even in the same county the usage was not uniform, as was proved by several of the witnesses examined by the committee. The hon. and learned gentleman stated the practice of several counties, to show the variety in the proceedings of the grand juries, and the necessity of recurring to the observation of what was, amid all deviations, certainly the law of the land. He would not look back upon the neglect that had been shown it; he would make no reference to the past, but for the purpose of evincing that it was completely forgotten, and that we were to turn our attention to the improvement of the future. He knew well how delicate questions concerning the administration of justice were, and, instead of making any reflections upon its past state, would propose the measures which the actual circumstances demanded. This was not difficult to be done. The law was, that there should be evidence-evi

to guide their decisions but what the magistrate had transmitted them. He was, therefore, the only person who deserved the title of a grand jury. There was no check to oppression, therefore, from the grand inquest. This was a most impor tant privilege, of which Ireland was deprived. There was nothing that could be more essential to the interests and rights of those individuals who were exposed to trial, whether justly or unjustly, than restoring this privilege. For this purpose, he thought the grievance should be redressed by a declaratory act. There would be no necessity for an enacting statute, but merely for a declaratory one. Any other would, besides being useless, have the appearance of altering the common law of the land. He therefore moved "For leave to bring in a bill to declare the law for the right proceeding of grand juries in Ireland upon bills of indictment."

Mr. Peel declared, that he felt no intention of opposing the principle of the measure now suggested, but he imagined that no one could deny that such a subject demanded the most anxious inquiry; that in endeavouring to introduce an important alteration in the customary practice of the

subsequently chief baron of the exchequer in England. Chief Justice Reynolds, of the common pleas in Ireland, was also an Englishman, and yet, with these, and many others, the practice then prevailing in the grand juries of Ireland had such an inflųence as to prevent their attempting to disturb it. The hon. and learned gentleman had indeed justly stated, that, in 1762, doubts as to the legality of this practice had been stated by chief justice Aston, and a meeting of the judges was convened to consider them. At that time there were only nine judges in Ireland, and of that number seven agreed in the legality of the practice, and continued it in consequence of its general convenience in the country. Among those who acceded to that opinion were, lord chancellor Bowles and chief justice Willes, both Englishmen. He appealed, in support of his opinion, to the indirect authority of both houses of the Irish parliament. The question, indeed, had never come before the House of Commons, but their silence might be considered a proof of their general concurrence in the practice. It might indeed have been a departure from the common law, but it appeared to them justifiable, in consequence of the great press of civil business which belonged to grand juries, and partly perhaps from a desire to protect witnesses from the indignation to which they were exposed in that country. The indirect authority of the House of Peers, was, however, more distinctly marked, for they had suffered one of their own body (lord Sandford) to be executed for murder, on proceedings precisely the same as were usually adopted on all common indictments. He was pleased that, in the introduction of this measure, no censure was attached to any persons whatever for all past proceedings, and while he agreed in the general expediency of the bill, he hoped that no grounds for objection would be admitted into the wording of it.

grand juries of Ireland, in counteracting | baron of the exchequer, in Ireland, and à usage confirmed by immemorial custom, great difficulties must present themselves; and that the House should, above all things, deprecate precipitation. A considerable time must necessarily elapse before the provisions of this measure could be brought into operation. The next assizes in Ireland must take place early in March; before that period it would be impossible to run the bill through all its stages; consequently, as it could not be applied until the succeeding assizes, no necessity existed of pressing the question. He suggested that some alteration in the civil proceedings of grand juries in Ireland might, perhaps, in that time, be adopted, and that thus associated, the measure would be rendered more permanently beneficial to that country. With sincere pleasure he had heard the candid declaration of the hon. and learned gentleman, that no censure could be applied to the very distinguished and honourable persons who administered the laws in Ireland, and with him he also agreed in supposing, that the law now to be introduced should be declaratory; but he begged leave to observe, that the hon. and learned member appeared somewhat precipitate in declaring that the practice of the grand juries in Ireland was contrary to the precepts of the common law. He allowed that the authority of the hon. and learned 'gentleman in a case of this nature, was very high; but as far as it related to Ireland, he would oppose authority of no small eminence. As far as constant prac'tice could constitute the common law of any nation, he had the statment of the ton. and learned gentleman himself to support his opinion, that the present usage was the common law of Ireland; for he had asserted that it seemed to exist from time immemorial. The practice, as such, had been sanctioned by the first legal authorities of England; for not many centuries past, few lawyers who practised at the Irish bar, were raised to the bench. The judges were supplied almost intirely from Westminster-hall, and these, some of whom were the brightest ornaments of the profession, had sanctioned the practice by their approbation. The name of one of them was familiar with every person the least versed in legal information, as his authority was ever regarded with the highest respect; he alluded to chief baron Gilbert, who had been successively chief justice of the common pleas, and chief

Mr. Ponsonby expressed his obligations to the right hon. gentleman for the judicious manner in which he had treated the question; but there was an observation advanced by him in the course of his speech, which it was impossible to pass by unnoticed. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think that the common law of Ireland was different from the common law of England, but such a circumstance was altogether impossible. When the