The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

not be as satisfactory a decision of a case as twelve, but pnofinl.ll the present system had been found to work well, and he would bs :flmod to any interference with it, The fact t a Commission appolated by the British Parliament in -- 1832, after mkln? the fullest enquiry, with the advantage o having the Soottish system In operation at their very doors, had reported advorsely to auy chango, was a very '"°°81 argumont sgainst tke Bill of his hou, frlend, The verdict of nine men was as good4 at the ead of five minutes as at the ead of three hours, or that of eight men at the end of twenty minutes as at the end of two hours, aud he had yet to hear an argament which would logically meot this view, Political Inflaencs upon jarymen had beon mentloned as & reaton for changs, but he failsd to see that the Bill would make any improvement in that respoot, As had been mentloned by tha member for South Brant,ths change asked for would be lHkely to introducs a very daunger. would be lizely to introducs a ver{'dngtr- ous feeling into our jury ;'yltun. he pro-- portion cf Roman Catholics to oach petty jury in the Province would be about two or three out of the twelve, and it would b»s a very likely thing for unthinking suitors to say that sectarianism had prevatled in many casce If the proposed change ware brought about, and thus a new element of distrust and discord would be introdauced into the country, Mr, MOWAT siid that the avowed ob jeot of those provisions in the Bill allowing a certain time for juries to propare thoir ver-- diot was to allow of discussion in the jary-- room, but he could not see that this objsct would alwaya be secured. Nothwithstand-- ing the evils of the existing system, popu: lsr _ cpliolon both in the Uaited States and England scemed t>o be strongly in favour of the presant lzltom, and thoogh personally ho was in favour of a majority ruling in a jary, as in Legislatares, Committecs, %ondl of Directors, &1, hs did not think the opinion of the Canadiau people was in frvour of the change, Hs Mr, SCOT said that some of the arga-- mentscmployed by the hon. msmber %or Norfolk had been ltrong onts, but that hon. member had overlooked the faot that the Bill would not mect the evile complained of, Ho thought so important a Bill shculd bave been introduced by the Goavernment, The system was a vary old one, it was dear to every Bsitish subject, ard the Imperlal Par. Hasment, which was certaialy as capable as this body to deal with the question, had steadfastly refussd to make thechange which was pow sought by a private member of the Legislature of Oatario without any warning, or without a sign that the public wanted sach an important change. Itssemad to be taken for granted that if one juror hold out against the opinion of ths other elevenhe inevitably did zo from an iomproper motive, or from shear stubborunsss; but he did not thirk this was cften the case. Ho thought that hon. members should first ascertain the views of their constituents b:fore parsing so very important a measure as the present, _ belicved that the prejadices against the prin-- oilple of the Blil would in tims be removed, but in the meantime he thought his hon. friexd would have to defer what would yot be & valuable reform. Mr, CLARKE (Nor'olk} roferred to cases which he said had bscome historlcal, and in which it had heen impossible toget a verdict, thus either allowing susplclon to rost upon an jinvrocent man, or permitting the guilt& to ercape, and causing unnecessary litigation, His own experience as a cororor had convicced him that the presont was not the best one. He did not thinkthat the number twelve was a sacred one, or that eleven would cot do as well. Mr, CAMERON said the Bill was in his opivion uncalled for, and it would not effect aremedy to any czisting evil. His expe-- rience bad convlyfiood him that it far more frequently happened that a larger proportion of a jury than one out of twelve was the mosns of proventing a verdict. Ho could not see how the m:sod olunglr ocu'd be expected to work beneficlally, If the jury were unanimous in believing a maan to be wrong, that man would ba m »re likely to be ratisficd with the verdiot than !f it wore returned onlly by & majortt{'. Instead of dimioishing litigation, he bolieved this would increase it. Ho considered the Attorney-- General had taken the corrsct course in this Mr, ROSS said this was one of very fow measures introduc:d by legal members on which laymen could form an opinion. A very large proportion of the cases now before the Courts were tried without i:rlu, bocauss the people had no confidence in the systems of unanimsus verdiocts. The system of ma-- jority verdicts had worked mi in Sootland, and there was no reason why the jury sys-- tem shorld not be amended, He thought this reform was very much wanted. In all other cazes a majorlty was aufficient, and he saw no _ reason why it should not suffice in jarles It twelve were necessary to a vordict, why not thirteen, fourteen, or filteen : There was nothing msgical in the number twelva, and they should amerd It If it was found desirable. Mr, CROOKS sald he agreod that it was desirable that in most cases a majority mhould govern, but there was a difference in the peculiar functions which a jury was ex-- peoted to perform. In his view, the value of a juiy arose entirely from the unanimity which was required. 'The verdict of a ma-- jority deg:nded on matters of opivion rather than on the truth, and in Eogland the de-- clsions of the Courts which required unan-- imity on the part of the judges commanded more respect than those of tribunals whorae a majority was sufficlent, Mr. BETHUNE sald ho was sorry that the Treasurer had stated so definitely his opposition to the Bill, Hon,. gentiemsn who woere opposed to the prlnciflo of the Bill did4 not agree on the grounds of their oppo-- rition. The chief ground seemed to be that this arclent system had not been changed in To amend the law of vendor and purchasor, ard to simplify titles--Mr. Mowat. CONCURRENCE, The amendments made in Committeo to the following Bills were concurred in :-- Rerpecting sureties for Public Officors of Outserio--Mr, Mowat. To make further provision mg:oflfll Por. manent Bullding Societies--Mr, Mowat, Mr MOWAT moved the adjournment of the House. y3 The House adjourned at 10.05 p.m, England or the United States, The fact was that in England the attsntion of the Hov:ss of Commons could not be kept for an itour to the question of law reform, and that in the United States the people had lost co=> fidence in their judiclary. No ons had sald anything which theroetically or logically would bear against this Blil, but hon. mem-- bers thought the prufnt system had worked well, and desired to leave woll alone, He brought this measure forward in order that public opision might be expressed on it. There might not have been any pstitions or reports of judges in favour of this change, but it was the duty of this House to iniiiite legislatlion. It was the duty of the Legislature to throw a pro tection around the jury box, especlally in tha wotern view of the administration of jastlo. ~~ This Bill was not intexded to interfere in oriminal cases, but in matters affecting pro-- perty surely it was a faroos to expest unanl-- mity on the part of twolve mon in their opin« ion on such eubjects? It was contrary to com-- mon seaze to expect twolve unlearned men to agree when they did not expect twelve learned judges to agree, He intended to di-- vide the House on the sscond reading, though he did not intend to prew the Bill further, NATs.--Menrs Appleby, Ballantyne Boll, Bisho», Cameron, Coutts, Urooks, Dawson _ Ferris, Krasor, Gow, Grahem (Lombton), Grango Hardg, Hargraft, BHarkin, Hodglus, Lane Lyon, McCraney, Mcueod, McMahon, Monk, Mowat O'Dwogbus, Pardss, Patierson (Eeses) _ Parton, FPreston. Rasovear, Bcott, Eprivger, Watterworth, Widdifield, W liitams, Wills, Wilson, Wood.--3$3 YrAs,--Messrs Barr, Bethune. Boulter, B:own, Chisholm, Clarke (Norfolk), Clarke (Wellington), ¥inlsyson, Fleaher, Hbson, Graham (Frontenac) Gravt, Hay, Hunter, Lauder, McDougall (M'ddlessx), Macdougall (Simcoe), McGowan, McRas, Meredith Merrick, Patterson (York) Richardson, Roiinson, Bors, Bluclalr, Snetaluger, striker, Tooley, Wigie,.-- Mr, BETHUNE sald he had stated that ho did not intend to press the Bill now, but hs sould not give up the vote on its principle, Mr, SPEAKER said hbe had declazed the second reading carried in error. The Houre then divided, and the sacond4 reading was lost, Yeas, 30; Nays, 38. . To apply the system of voticg by ballot on By.laws requiring the assent of the elocters --Mr, Mowat. Mr, MOWAT pointed out that the second reading bad already been carried, and the question now was the reference to a Special Committse, If a vote were takon it would imply tha t those who voted for it thought it nhonfd become law at oncse, He did not think so, thoufih he approved of the prinolple of the Bill in the abstract. Ho did vot believe the time had come for the pas-- zage of this important measure. willr