I think that amendment 2 should be taken first. It is the operative amendment, and amendment No. 1 goes with it.
BILLS FROM THE SEANAD. - JURIES BILL, 1927—REPORT.
I move amendment No. 2, which reads:—
Before Section 3 (2), page 4, to insert a new sub-section:—
"Every male citizen of the age of 21 years or upwards and under the age of 65 years, who is otherwise qualified for serving as a juror may have his name placed on the panel of jurors of the jury districts for which he is qualified by expressing in writing to the registration office of the district his willingness to serve as a juror."
This proposal is made on the assumption that the amendment brought forward by Deputy Sir James Craig and approved by the Minister would be embodied in the Bill. There is very little to be said on it——
Hear, hear.
——except to this effect that it substitutes, or rather introduces, the word "he" instead of "she" in the amendment of Sir James Craig, so that if the Minister were to adopt this amendment also we should have co-equality of men and women before the law in regard to jury service. As the Minister for External Affairs would say, it would implement co-equality of citizenship. Everything to be said in favour of the proposal in my amendment has been already argued by the Minister for Justice. That is why I said, and he applauded, that there was very little to be added. The reasons given for going back upon the Act of 1924 and also abolishing the Act of 1919, the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, were that it was inconvenient to the officials and that it was costly. It must be very inconvenient to the officials and very costly to prepare a list of male jurors and have these called, and it must be very inconvenient to the judges to find absent jurors. When I asked the Minister, supposing that such an amendment as this were in the Bill, how many did he think would serve, he answered "About sixty per cent.""Suppose," I asked, "there was a similar Act allowing men to ask for exemption (that is, of course, in reference to the Act of 1924, which he now rescinds), suppose we had merely to apply in court for exemption and exemption was accorded, what percentage of men does he calculate would be willing to serve on juries?" Mr. O'Higgins replied: "About sixty per cent." So that a great deal of expense and trouble would be saved by this reform. Everybody knows that what the Minister alleged in regard to women holds equally in regard to men. This duty of citizenship, serving on a jury, is very unpleasant. Some idealists hold that all duties are pleasant in their discharge, but, unfortunately, the practice of life shows that many duties, even those recognised as noble, are very unpleasant. Service on a jury is like much study, a weariness to the flesh. If men were allowed to express their views they would, undoubtedly, add considerably to the list of exemptions set out in the Schedule to the Bill. In order to save all the trouble of having exemption lists and inquiries, inquisitions, as to who is, and who is not, entitled to exemption, we simplify the procedure according to the Minister's argument—and I am sure to him his own argument is an excellent argument—by allowing the men who have the public spirit to desire to take part in, and assist, the administration of justice to apply to have their names registered as jurors.
The Deputy bases his amendment on the assumption that because we are unwilling to impose compulsory jury service on women we should be willing to leave jury service for male citizens a purely optional matter. That, of course, is not the position and the Deputy knows it. The amendment, if it is not derisive and, consequently, out of order, is, at any rate, very close to the line of being purely derisive in intent. The Deputy throughout this Bill has taken the line that there should be recognised, administratively, complete parity between the position of men and that of women with regard to jury service. I do not recognise anything of the kind. I think that women themselves do not recognise anything of the kind, and this whole issue which was raised with regard to women on juries is, in fact, a minority demand and, admittedly, a minority demand. When I say a "minority," I mean it is a minority demand so far as the women themselves are concerned.
On a point of order, may I ask to what amendment the Minister is speaking?
To the Deputy's amendment.
The Minister is certainly not in order on that amendment.
Then if we are confined to discussing solely the question as to whether jury service should be purely optional for male citizens and if we are debarred from any reference, however slight, to the position of women citizens, I can be very brief, and I shall merely content myself by putting to the Dáil the point of view that it is undesirable to accept the Deputy's amendment.
Amendments 1 and 2 go together, but I think amendment 2 is really the operative amendment, and I propose to take a decision on that amendment.
Amendment 2 put and negatived.
I move:—
"In page 4 to delete Section 3 (2), lines 11-26."
This is merely to eliminate the absurd provision that the husband of a woman who is qualified in point of property shall serve as a juror in her stead. It only requires to be mentioned for its absurdity to be exposed.
In lines 20 to 26 of page 4 of the Bill Deputies will notice the proposal is that where the property is in the wife's name the husband shall be liable for jury service unless he is for the time being disqualified or exempt from service as a juror or proves to the satisfaction of the registration officer that he never had any interest in such land and did not directly or indirectly provide the purchase money thereof. The purpose of that is to provide for the case where specifically in order to evade jury service a transfer of property is made from husband to wife. Roughly speaking, this means that a well-to-do man must serve as a juror if his wife has the necessary rateable valuation, and in that way we propose to put an end to the practice of putting property in the wife's name so that the husband may be relieved from jury service. The idea of the Deputy's amendment is that the woman should serve and the husband go free. In our proposal, in the first place, the woman need not serve at all unless she wants to, and I do not propose to depart from that position. Secondly, if a woman were obliged to serve in law she would not serve in practice; she would say that she was ill, or had children to mind, or that her husband's dinner would not be cooked, and the judge would either exempt her altogether or remit the fine in whole or in part. I am not accepting the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost, Deputy Magennis and Deputy Myles Keogh being recorded as supporting the amendment.
I move amendment 6:—
In page 8, before Section 16. to insert a new section as follows:—
Any woman who is in every respect except sex qualified and liable to serve as a juror may apply at any time during the month of April in any year to the county registrar for the area coterminous with or including (as the case may be) the jury district in respect of which she is so qualified and liable that her name be inserted in the general lists of jurors or the draft jurors lists (as the case may require) then being revised under this Act by such county registrar, and such county registrar, if satisfied that such woman is in every respect except sex qualified and liable to serve as a juror in respect of a jury district coterminous with or included in his area, shall insert in such general lists of jurors or draft jurors lists (as the case may be) the name of such woman, her place of abode, her trade, her profession, calling, or description, and the situation, description and rateable value of the land in respect of which she is so qualified and liable, and thereupon such woman shall become and be qualified and liable to serve as a juror in respect of such jury district when and so long as the jurors list derived from such general lists of jurors or draft jurors lists is in force.
This amendment was put down to carry out the undertaking which I gave to Deputy Sir James Craig on the Committee Stage. The Deputy had an amendment down, the effect of which was that women who are otherwise qualified could be entered on the jury panel if they expressed a wish to be so entered. The present amendment, together with amendments 4 and 5, are consequential, and are merely the official draughtsman's version of Deputy Sir James Craig's amendment, and the purpose which is sought to be effected by that amendment. I am letting this amendment go to the Dáil without enthusiasm and simply in fulfilment of my undertaking to Deputy Sir James Craig. It is a matter that I would like to leave entirely free to the Dáil to vote upon. I should say that it is not approved by such organisations of women citizens as exist in the city and that have had any communication with me on the question of this Bill; neither is it approved by the Attorney-General or those who are responsible for prosecutions on behalf of the State. Probably, on the whole, I would be better satisfied if the amendment were rejected, and I wish the Dáil to vote quite freely on the matter.
As the Minister said, the women's organisations containing a membership of women of very pronounced views as regards the rights to participate in the duties of citizenship declared against this amendment. If you will allow me, sir, I will read a resolution passed at a special conference called on Monday, February 28th, to discuss the Juries Bill. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power presided at the conference, and the following resolution was passed:—
"This conference, representative of women voters, is strongly opposed to the principle of a voluntary panel for women jurors, as proposed by Deputy Sir James Craig's amendment and about to be incorporated in the Juries Bill, and urges all Deputies to vote against it. The societies represented at the conference are the National Council of the Women of Ireland; the Irish Women Workers' Union; the Women's Cooperative Guild; Irish Women's Citizen Association; Irish Women's Equality League; Irish Women's International Peace and Freedom League."
It will be seen from the character of the societies represented at this conference that every social class of workers and people of leisure, and every variety of political opinion, was represented at the conference which decided against any such proposal as is suggested in the amendment being embodied in the Bill.
The amendment is thoroughly reactionary, like the Minister's original proposal. It sets at naught the experience of other countries. There are over twenty States in the American Union in which women serve on juries, and judges have frequently pronounced encomiums on the value of their services. This is the first time in history, so far as I am aware, that the reason given for exempting citizens from an unpleasant duty was that they did not like the duty, and to propose, consequently, to impose a further and more onerous duty upon those women who are willing to undertake it. It would be utterly unfair to the women of public spirit to call upon them to do duty for all the women in this matter. I think the Minister has argued so effectively and appealed so strongly to have this amendment defeated that there is really no necessity for anyone to labour the point further.
I want to ask the Minister if there is any alternative between this devil of an amendment and the deep sea of the original draft Bill? Is there any chance of getting back to the state of affairs established by the Act of 1924? Last week, like many other Deputies, I had representations from women's associations urging me not to support this amendment. On the other hand, I went to some trouble to find out what the opinions of some average women were on the whole question of serving on juries. I was fortunate enough to meet a number who had served on juries, and they were unanimous in their desire to be relieved of the task. But if we could go back, perhaps, to the condition of affairs of the 1924 Act it might remove what is apparently regarded as a slight on the more zealous women citizens.
I am in the position of the old man and his ass who tried to please everybody; I have succeeded in pleasing nobody. There was a great complaint by certain women when in the Bill the Minister suggested that they should no longer have any right to serve as jurors. In my innocence I thought that these women would be pleased to get an opportunity of doing this work. I do not agree with Deputy Magennis that the reason that was put forward for introducing this amendment was that the women did not like it. That was not the reason why I put it forward. I said that between the ages of twenty and forty the majority of women had a much more important duty to perform to the State than serving on juries, that their functions were motherhood and looking after their families, and they objected to these other women, who have missed these functions, and who wanted to drive to serve on juries those who have something else to do. That is the position of affairs. It is a dog in the manger attitude. These women will not accept this amendment now when they have got a chance of serving, and they want to drag in the thousands of women who have not only an objection but have something else far more important to do. That is the point I insist on making.
There has also been a great deal of talk as to whether women are capable of serving on juries or not. I made it clear that I considered there are plenty of women just as capable of serving on juries as there are men. I also said that I thought it would be advisable to have women on certain juries, and here we have these very women objecting to the chance they get, and they have passed resolutions stating that it is absolutely necessary in certain circumstances that women should be on juries. I do not think anything would please them, but at all events I have not the slightest desire to try to please them. I proposed an amendment that I thought was an extremely fair-minded solution, and one that would be acceptable to everyone, because, as I pointed out—and I want to lay stress upon this again—there is a very great difference between giving women the franchise and compelling them to serve on juries. When a woman has the franchise she may or may not vote, as she pleases, but if she is put on a jury compulsorily she has to go unless she is able to find some valid excuse. There is the greatest possible difference between these two conditions. Then people speak about having gone behind the Constitution and having taken away from women with one hand what we have given with the other. I have no desire in the world to press this amendment, and I have the greatest possible pleasure in withdrawing it.
I do not know whether Deputy Sir James Craig is in order in withdrawing an amendment of the Minister for Justice. I should object to his doing so. He spoke in parables. I would not like to call him an old man, but he is an older man than I am, so that I presume that he must perform the function of the old man, and I the other part, in the case of the old man and his ass. I think a very important question arises on this. The chief argument we heard from Deputy Magennis was that it was an injustice to women that they should be tried without a woman on a jury. Now, Deputy Magennis is going to make it impossible to have a woman on a jury, because if this amendment is not carried the result will be to go back to the status quo in the Bill, to leave no loophole by which any woman, however well qualified, however desirous, can serve on a jury. I think that is a reactionary step. I was opposed to compelling women who had not a wish to serve to do so at the desire of a certain small but active minority among women. Deputy Magennis read us a long list of societies which passed a resolution. Can he tell us the strength of the membership of these societies? I do not want to reflect on them in any way.
I know that some members of them are very useful, active and valuable citizens, but putting aside the Irish Women Workers' Union, the strength of which I do not know, I should be very much surprised if the remaining societies have a membership of one thousand. And how many women are there in the Saorstát? Over a million. I cannot take these societies as representative of their sex as a whole. I will take them as representative of those of their sex who take the greatest interest in public affairs. They do not represent the whole of the women of the Saorstát, and Deputy Magennis knows that they do not. I do not want to see the principle of sex discrimination introduced. I do not want to see it laid down in this Bill, with the assent and cordial support of Deputy Magennis, that no woman should ever sit on a jury in any circumstances. Therefore I hope that this amendment will not be withdrawn.
I should like to support this amendment. I entirely agree with Deputy Sir James Craig's idea. I think it is desirable that women should be available in certain cases to serve on juries, but I think also that it should not be compulsory on them. It should be left to themselves, to their honour and to their sense of duty. I do not think so badly of women as to think that when it is left to them in that way, those who are able and who are not bound down by certain conditions will not consider it their duty to put their names on the jury list. I do not agree with the remark made by Deputy Johnson when this matter was previously considered. I understood him to say that he was afraid that if women were left a voluntary choice in this matter the lists would be filled up by the class of women who rush to the courts to hear certain spicy cases. I do not think that for one moment; I think he is mistaken in that.
I think the class of women that fill the courts when there is a sensational case on—I do not know what they go there for; it may be to admire the clothes of one another or to criticise the prisoner in the dock—are not the women who will take any trouble about a case. They would not put themselves out to be shut up in a box trying a case, perhaps for days. To my mind you would not find women of that kind taking any trouble to serve on juries. The women who will go to serve on juries are those who consider it their duty to do so. I hope and believe that there is a very large number of women actuated by principles of duty, who will consider it their duty to put their names on the jury list—those who have the time, ability and nerve for that kind of thing. I do not think there will be any lack of suitable women coming forward to do what is their obvious duty when they have the power and the ability to carry it out.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Justice praised this amendment with faint damns, and is supported by Deputy Magennis in open hostility to it, I believe that this proposed section should be incorporated in the Bill. The apparent agreement of the Minister for Justice and Deputy Magennis is merely a meeting of the extremes. The Minister for Justice evidently does not like women in any circumstances serving on a jury. Deputy Magennis is dissatisfied. He, the exponent of the feminist claim, wants all women brought in and compelled to serve on juries, and as such he is dissatisfied with the proposed section. Yet, is it not a very reasonable proposal that any woman who so desires and who is qualified, may have her name placed on the register for jury service? But evidently that does not give satisfaction. It is not suitable and it is not pre-eminently desirable for some of the leaders; they want not so much the right to serve on juries as to conscript their sisters for jury service whether the latter desire it or not, whether they can very well afford the time, or whether they have even to neglect their homes or business.
I submit it is an impossible proposition for us to entertain. It is the movement of a truculent minority, and this proposed section gives us a means out. Just contemplate what will happen if this section is defeated. You will have the old agitation renewed over again. Sex disqualification, we will be told. A wail of lamentation will go over the country. I submit this section is a pre-eminently suitable one, and inasmuch as we want to avoid this cry of a reactionary movement of sex disqualification, we ought to support it. I do not know how many Deputies will follow the lead of the Minister for Justice, but I certainly will press this amendment to a division and vote for it.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Séan O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- David Hall.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputy Cooper and Deputy Connor Hogan. Níl: Deputy Magennis and Deputy Norton.
Amendment declared carried.
That decision governs amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 4.—In page 7, Section 15 (1), line 53, after the word "omissions" but within the bracket to insert the words "and the insertion of the names and other particulars of those women who become entitled under this Act to have their names inserted therein" (Séamus O Dóláin).—Agreed.
Amendment 5.—In page 8, Section 15 (3), line 5, after the word "that" to insert in brackets the words "(save for the insertion of the names and other particulars of those women who became entitled under this Act to have their names inserted therein)" (Séamus O Dóláin).—Agreed.
I move amendment 7:—
In page 9, Section 20 (3), lines 57 and 58, to delete the words "who has served as a juror on or after the 1st day of January, 1927," and substitute the words "whose name was included in a panel of jurors for attendance in any court on or after the 1st day of September, 1926."
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the new system of preparing the jurors' books comes into operation it will not have the effect of causing people who recently served on juries to be called again. Consequently, it is provided that no person will be called for service on a jury except those whose last service dates back prior to the long vacation of 1926.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 8:—
In page 12, Section 29 (1), line 39, after the word "triable" to insert the words "with the jury."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 9:—
In page 12, Section 29 (2), line 48, after the word "triable" to insert the words "with the jury."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 10:—
In page 13, Section 31, before sub-section (1) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) Every issue, whether civil or criminal, which is triable with a jury by a Judge of the Circuit Court sitting in the county borough or the county of Dublin shall be triable with a jury called from a panel of jurors drawn partly from the county borough of Dublin and partly from the county of Dublin and no such issue shall be tried by any such judge sitting as aforesaid with any other jury."
The purpose of this amendment is to simplify the procedure in the County Dublin. Under Sections 29 and 30 of the Bill, jurors for the High Court and the Central Criminal Court in Dublin are to be selected in the particular manner prescribed in the section. This amendment means that jurors for the Circuit Court in Dublin will be selected in the same manner, so that if the amendment is passed all the jurors in Dublin will be selected in the same manner. The effect is that for the City and County of Dublin the jurors will be in a common pool, and the mode of selection for each set of courts will be the same.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 11:
In page 13, Section 31 (1), line 8, after the word "triable" to insert the words "with a jury," and in line 9 to delete the words "with a jury" where they first occur and substitute therefor the words "sitting elsewhere than in the county borough or the county of Dublin," and in line 12 after the word "Judge" to insert the words "sitting as aforesaid."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 12:
In page 13, Section 31 (3), line 24, after the word "triable," to insert the words "with a jury," and in line 25 to delete the words "with a jury" where they first occur and substitute therefor the words "sitting elsewhere than in the county borough or the county of Dublin" and in line 27 after the word "Judge" to insert the words "sitting as aforesaid."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 13:
In page 15, Section 32 (3), line 1, after the word "book" to insert the words "and arranged in alphabetical order," and in line 6 to delete the words "in alphabetical order as in a jurors book" and substitute the words "divided into several parts each containing the names selected from one jurors' book."
This is a minor amendment of no public interest. It is inserted at the request of the officials who are responsible for preparing the panel, and is designed to relieve those officials of some unnecessary trouble. The point of the amendment is that in the cases now in question there are two or three officials who combine to form a joint panel, each official contributing a list of jurors from his book, the list being in alphabetical order. Under the existing conditions these separate lists have to be re-arranged so that the combined panel is in alphabetical order. The three smaller panels have to be reshuffled so as to produce one large alphabetical panel. This is unnecessary trouble, and everybody will be quite as well satisfied if the combined panel is prepared without the reshuffling by merely showing the smaller panels as Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the larger panel.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 14:—
In page 15, Section 34 (1), line 33, to delete the word "fourteen" and substitute therefor the word "twenty."
It was represented to me that fourteen days' notice was inadequate and hence the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendments 15, 16 and 17:—
15.—In page 16, Section 38, to delete the word "registered" in sub-section (2), line 58, and sub-section (3), lines 64 and 66.
16.—In page 17, Section 40 (1), line 19, to delete the word "registered."
17.—In page 18, Section 42, to delete the word "registered" in sub-section (1), line 11, sub-section (2), line 19, sub-section (3), line 25, and sub-section (4), line 33.
The effect of these three amendments is that if the Minister for Justice and the judge agree a juror's summons may be served either by the ordinary post or by registered post. The necessity for getting the judge's consent appears in Section 42, sub-sections (1) and (5) of the Bill.
Amendments put and agreed to.
I move amendment 18:—
In page 18, before Section 43, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever a panel of jurors has been summoned to attend a court during a sitting any judge of that court may at any time or times during such sittings and for any reason which appears to him to be sufficient direct the empanelling officer and the summoning officer respectively to empanel and summon a supplemental panel of jurors to attend such court on such day in such sittings as such judge, when directing the preparation of such supplemental panel, shall specify.
(2) A supplemental panel prepared under this section shall be prepared and the jurors named therein shall be summoned in the like manner as nearly as may be, having regard to the length of the time between the direction for the preparation of such panel and the day specified by the judge for the attendance of the jurors named in such panel, as a panel is required by this Act to be prepared and the jurors named therein are required by this Act to be summoned.
(3) The names of the jurors entered on a supplemental panel prepared under this section shall be called over in accordance with this Act on the day and at the time on and at which such jurors have been summoned to attend the court and at the conclusion of such calling over such supplemental panel shall be added to and thenceforward form part of the panel first mentioned in this section.
Administratively there is an old practice whereby if the panel of jurors runs short a supplementary or, as it is called, an emergency panel may be struck to meet the situation. This amendment merely gives specific statutory authority for what has been the practice.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 19:—
In page 19, Section 43 (4), lines 9 and 10, to delete the words "not exceeding ten pounds and not less than five pounds" and substitute the words "of three pounds."
I think this amendment might be taken with amendments 22 and 27. What is now proposed is that there shall be a standard automatic fine of £3 for a juror who does not turn up in court, but that every person who is so fined shall have an opportunity of appealing to the judge to have the fine remitted in whole or in part. The notice informing the juror that he has been fined will enable him to put forward any excuse that he may have for the consideration of the judge. This is, I think, a fair system. Amongst other advantages it means that the judge can consider the case which is put up to him for revision at his leisure, and may call for police reports or medical certificates to whatever extent he thinks necessary. It is an automatic fine of £3, and there is ample opportunity for appeal to the judge subsequently, and for remission by the judge of the penalty that he imposed in the first instance.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 20:—
In page 19, Section 44 (1), line 34, to insert immediately before the word "with" the words "by the summoning officer," and in line 37 to delete the words "shall write" and substitute therefor the words "having written thereon," and in lines 38 and 39 to delete the words "on such cards," and in line 40 to insert immediately before the word "shall" the words "such registrar."
This is an amendment such as one we have already dealt with which concerns no one in particular except officials. It is a question whether certain very minor duties should be performed by the UnderSheriff so long as there is an UnderSheriff, or whether they should be transferred to the County Registrar. The effect is that those duties shall continue to be performed by the UnderSheriff so long as that officer is in existence.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 21:—
In page 19, Section 44, to insert immediately before the word "call," line 45, the words "unless the judge otherwise directs."
This is to dispense with the necessity of calling the panel of jurors if the jurors are attending sufficiently well.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 22:—
In page 19, Section 44 (3), lines 53 and 54, to delete the words "not exceeding ten pounds and not less than five pounds" and substitute the words "of three pounds."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 23:—
In page 20, before Section 45, to insert a new section as follows:—
"In every criminal case where the case to be tried is of an offence against a woman or child, and in any other case concerned with or affecting the property, reputation or civil rights of a woman, a mixed jury shall be empanelled to try the issue."
There are two distinct cases, the criminal and the civil. It is obvious, I think, to everyone, how desirable it is as regards the criminal case that there should be some women, at least one woman, on the jury. It may not be quite so obvious in the case of a civil suit as to why there should be a mixed jury, but a moment's reflection will show that if we are to preserve equality of citizenship, if we are to impress the public that even-handed justice is dispensed in our courts, the suspicion of prejudice or a pre-possession in the minds of a jury totally of men should be removed, say, in a case where a woman is a plaintiff in a libel action or something affecting her reputation. This amendment is put down on the assumption that there would be women jurors available, and as the amendment, in spite of the Minister's opposition, has been carried by his own vote, there will be women available for service on juries. Presumably there will be unless, of course, the resentment of women to the injustice perpetrated by this Bill should lead them to refrain from having their names down, but I do think that Deputy Sir James Craig's prophecy will not be fulfilled. The women who have exerted themselves for the enfranchisement of their sex, and who have taken a lead in all social movements affecting the interests of women and children in the community, are not likely to be actuated by small motives of that type.
The basis of this amendment seems to be that a woman or child cannot depend on a fair trial when the jury is composed only of male citizens. That is something I am not prepared to admit. From the beginnings of a legal system in this country juries have, in fact, been composed exclusively of males up to the year 1920, and it would be a rather serious line to take to suggest that over that long period women and children did not, in fact, get a reasonably fair trial, because of the composition of the jury. Up to 1920 that was the position. Juries were drawn exclusively from male citizens; theoretically or since 1920 that is not the position, but we know that in actual fact and practice it continued to be the position. The Deputy suggests some essential antagonism between man and woman, and presumably, also, between man and child, that would prevent the administration of full justice and consequently he presses for mixed juries in any case in which a woman or child is the defendant. He does not make any suggestion——
On a point of order, the Minister misreads my amendment. It is not where a woman or child is defendant. It is in the case of an offence against a woman or child. That is a phrase well understood.
"Of an offence against a woman or child and in any other case concerned with or affecting the property, reputation or civil rights of a woman, a mixed jury shall be empanelled." That, as I read it, covers every case in which a woman is involved in whatever capacity. As to the mixed jury, there is no suggestion as to the strength of the mixture, whether it would be one in twelve or a more even proportion. Am I to take the Deputy as suggesting an evenly-mixed jury?
No; I said in my speech "some women," and I added "one at least in the criminal case." The Minister is thoroughly cognisant of the nature of the case which is a criminal offence against a woman or child, and knows very well what the ordinary reasons of human nature and sympathy are in favour of having some women on the jury, at least one.
The Deputy is, no doubt, aware that as the law stands in a civil case a verdict of nine out of twelve jurors suffices, so a mixture of one in twelve would be inadequate, if we accept as a basis that a woman cannot depend on the fair administration of justice by a jury composed of males.
I do not like to interrupt the Minister, but when was it given as a reason? It was not given by me.
I want to get clear about this solution of one in twelve. The Deputy remembers that the verdict of nine jurors suffices in a civil case. Recollecting that, does he still say that it would be sufficient to have one woman on a jury of twelve?
It might very well be. The Minister should remember that a jury is a deliberative body which listens to evidence, criticises it, and arrives, through deliberation, at a verdict. The requirement is to have a woman representative on that jury. The desire is not to have a packed jury. The Minister seems to have a packed jury in his mind.
I have not any packed jury in my mind. I am trying to get at the kind of jury that is in the Deputy's mind. It is a jury composed of eleven men and a woman. That is the mixed jury which he desires to secure under his amendment, in any case, broadly stated, in which a woman is involved. If Deputies believe that a woman or a child cannot depend on justice from a jury composed exclusively of males, they should vote for the Deputy's amendment. Because I absolutely refuse to accept the whole basis of his amendment, I do not propose to vote for it.
I have considerable sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy Magennis, but I do not feel that I would be justified in voting for the amendment, because I think in practice it might turn out to be unworkable and prevent the administration of justice. I can imagine that in a given district not one woman would be on the register of jurors, and if the amendment were inserted in the Bill then no criminal case in which a woman would be involved could be tried in that particular district. From that point of view I think the amendment is impracticable, or would work out in that way, in any case. Taking that point of view, I do not think I would be justified in supporting the amendment, although I have considerable sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy Magennis.
I, too, would support the amendment if there was a reasonable hope that there would be a sufficient number of women from which panels could be easily formed, but I think it is obvious from what the Minister said on a previous occasion, when he told us that about 3 per cent. of women would be the most that would be willing to serve, that Deputy O'Connell's point of view is the reasonable one—that in many districts there would be no women on the register, and it would be impossible to carry on the process of justice if you must have women on juries and there are no women to serve on them. When Deputy Magennis was speaking a few moments ago I suggested that very possibility— that possibly the women who may claim now to direct affairs for their weaker sisters may be annoyed at being given a chance to serve on juries and will not send in their names as a protest against what they think is an inequality for their sex. At all events, I think Deputy O'Connell has hit the nail on the head when he said that in many districts it would probably be impossible to form a jury at all if the amendment were carried.
Amendment put and declared lost, Deputies Magennis, Cooper, and Dr. Keogh being recorded as in favour of the amendment.
I move amendment 24:—
In page 20 to delete Section 45, lines 13 to 25.
Section 45 of the Bill embodies a provision that is in force, I think, in Northern Ireland, but it is not proposed to insist upon it. The amendment is to delete the section in toto, because we are satisfied that with the new arrangement as to the imposition and collection of fines it is unnecessary to insist that a judge must have sworn proof of the juror's ill-health. If this amendment is carried, amendment 25 in the name of Deputy Doctor Hennessy becomes unnecessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 25 not moved.
I move amendment 26:—
In page 21, Section 48 (3), line 14, to delete the words "before the end of" and substitute therefor the words "within three days before or at any time during," and in lines 15 and 16 to delete the words "sum of one shilling" and substitute therefor the words "prescribed fee."
As regards the first part of this amendment, the idea underlying it is that if jury panels are called a considerable time before the court sits the opportunity for canvassing jurors is too great and is too much availed of. The only reason for providing panels at all is to ensure that a prisoner will have time to recognise the name of any juror to whom he believes he has a reasonable objection which would justify his challenging that juror when the panel is called in court. He can do that readily in three days. Of course, he will usually have far more than three days, because his particular case may not come on until after the court has been sitting for perhaps weeks, and he will have the panel in his hands three days before the court begins to sit.
As regards the latter part of the amendment, the fee of 1/- mentioned in the existing text is copied from an old Act. The present fee is usually 2/6, and in any case it is not desirable to specify fees in Acts. The modern practice is to provide for a prescribed fee which may be varied from time to time to meet variations in the value of money. All court fees are now settled in fact by Order, and consequently it is proposed to change the provision in the Bill in that respect.
On the question of jury panels, I want to say in further justification of the portion of the amendment dealing with that, that it is within my knowledge, and has very frequently come under my notice, that litigants from the country, defendants remanded on bail, and their relatives, come up here to Dublin a considerable time before their case comes on for trial for no other purpose than that of doing a systematic canvass of the jury panel with regard to their case. That is a serious matter. It is within my knowledge that it is the beaten track for litigants from the country to come up to Dublin some fortnight or three weeks before their case comes on to embark upon a systematic canvass of the panel in the hope of coming across people who will in the ultimate turn out to be jurors in their particular case.
Is the Minister speaking of criminal or civil cases?
I am speaking mainly of criminal cases—persons remanded for trial on bail. I have known such persons to come to Dublin with their families, with perhaps two or three brothers, a fortnight before their case came on, and start a canvass of the jury panel.
Is not the remedy for that a later publication of the panel?
I am thinking of several remedies for it. We are adopting that remedy, in so far as it is a remedy—the later publication of the panel. That is one of the effects of the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment (27) was agreed to:—
In page 21, to add at the end of Section 49 three new sub-sections as follows:—
(2) Whenever a fine is imposed on a juror under this Act the summoning officer shall forthwith send by post to such juror at his address stated in the panel in which his name appeared when such fine was imposed a notice in the prescribed form informing him of the imposition of such fine and the opportunity afforded him by this section of obtaining remission thereof, and such juror may within five days after the imposition of such fine apply in person or by letter to the county registrar for a remission of such fine on such grounds as he thinks fit to put forward.
(3) The summoning officer shall bring every application for remission of a fine made to him under this section to the notice of the judge by whom such fine was imposed or, if such judge is not then in office, to his successor and such judge or his successor (as the case may be) may, if in his opinion justice so requires, remit or reduce such fine either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he thinks proper.
(4) No fine imposed on a juror under this Act shall be recoverable before the expiration of the period of five days allowed by this section for applying for remission thereof.
I move amendment 28:—
In page 22, Section 52, to insert immediately before sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Whenever it is intended that more than one such issue as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section shall be tried by the jury, the oath to be administered to the jurors shall be in the form set out in the foregoing sub-section with the addition thereto of the following words, that is to say: "and will in every respect so act in relation to all such other accused persons as may be given to me in charge for trial."
The idea of this amendment is that the same juror need not be re-sworn in each separate case. He takes the oath in a form that will cover all the cases in which he may be called upon to act as a juror at that sitting of the court. It is a device simply to save the time of the court.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 29.—In page 23, Section 55 (2), line 27, to delete all from the words "a number of jurors" to the word "persons" in line 29, and substitute the following:—"if such persons are accused of murder or treason, ten jurors and no more and, in any other case, six jurors and no more."
The provisions of the text of the Bill as it stands have been objected to somewhat on the ground that they increased unnecessarily the challenge rights of accused persons in misdemeanour cases. Under the existing law the accused persons in a misdemeanour must join in their challenges and cannot challenge in all more than six persons. It is considered that that is quite sufficient, and we simply propose to re-enact it. We recognise, however, that in cases of murder or treason where there is a possibility of the death sentence, greater latitude should be given, and it is, therefore, proposed to allow in those cases challenges up to the number of ten. But all that, of course, refers to peremptory challenges without cause, but challenges for cause shown or stated may be made in cases without any limit of number.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 30.—In page 23, Section 55 (2), to delete line 32 and substitute the words "jurors without causes shown but the total number of jurors so challenged by such accused persons if they are accused of murder or treason shall not exceed ten and in any other case shall not exceed six."
Agreed to.
I move amendment 31:—
In page 24, Section 57, after paragraph (f), line 39, to add a new paragraph as follows:—
"But no challenge unless for cause shown shall be permitted in the case of women jurors who by reason of having expressed their willingness to serve as jurors have been summoned for jury service."
In the previous debate on this Bill I mentioned the fact that very frequently women jurors were ordered peremptorily to stand by and that in that way they were as effectively excluded from the jury service as if by statute they were ineligible. Now, in view of the alteration in the law which requires that a woman, in order to be a juror, must voluntarily have her name set down upon the list of jurors, it is most desirable that her public spirit should not be countered by a continuance of this practice of "stand by." It is quite easy to see how their attendance in court could be so penalised that in the next ensuing period for writing down or entering their names none would come forward, so that with the very easy and cheap expedient of challenge without cause, the peremptory stand-by, the whole effect of this amendment of Deputy Sir James Craig would be nullified. It seems to me that the case for this does not require to be argued, and consequently I merely move the amendment.
I could not agree to this amendment or to the principle that the challenge should apply to the entire panel with the exception of a certain class on that panel. If it is right to allow a challenge without cause at all, and there seems to be some case for the retention of it, then it must be allowed without limitation in its application. The idea underlying the challenge without cause is that for a reason which, perhaps, it is not convenient or not desirable to state, it is considered that the presence of a particular person on a jury would prejudice the prospects of a fair hearing and a just verdict. Now, if you agree that there is any case for the peremptory challenge at all it is not reasonable to say that it should apply to everyone except this limited class within the panel, the class of women who have no objection to jury service, and who intimate that to the officers preparing the panel, so that their names should be entered on the panel. I could not agree, for a moment, to accept the principle of the Deputy's amendment that this challenge, limited in the extent to which it is to survive, shall be further limited in its application to certain persons who are on the panel of jurors.
I am rather afraid the Minister is approaching this amendment in a spirit of formalism which is almost verging on nominalistic formalism. His reasons are entirely abstract, without any consideration as to how this amendment will work. In practice I believe it would work fairly well. I am not entirely in love with the peremptory "stand by" without cause shown, and I think it might be very well to try an experiment, over a limited area, as to whether it would be possible to get on without it. The best limited area I can see is the area of women jurors created by this Bill; that is, the area of qualified educated women who have sufficient public spirit and sufficient sense of public duty to be willing to attend and serve as jurors. It is not proposed by Deputy Magennis, and I would not support him if he proposed it, to abolish challenge for cause shown. If the Government ever intended to charge Deputy Magennis with high treason or some such charge they would be justified in challenging every woman called upon that jury, because they would be naturally prejudiced in favour of so valiant a champion of their cause. But Deputy Magennis does not propose to destroy the right of challenge of jurors from any cause shown in any issue in which it may appear detrimental to the impartial administration of justice, and those views can be plainly expounded and expressed in court on challenge.
This is merely an objection to the challenge of "stand by." I have had no evidence, unless repeated assertions are evidence, that women jurors have been constantly ordered to stand by. It has been repeatedly asserted, and it is possible that there is some substance in it. I think the recognition by women of their responsibilities in regard to jury service under this Bill, as now amended, merits some recognition in return on the part of the State that they shall not be dragged to court, remain there for hours, and then find, when their names are called, that they are ordered to stand by without cause or reason. I am sorry the Minister is opposing this amendment. But as he was not really in favour of the amendment carried only a short time ago perhaps it is only natural. But this amendment is the logical corollary to the amendment which the Dáil already carried by a substantial majority.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 36.
Tá
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- David Hall.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin. Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Cooper and Keogh; Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
In page 25, Section 61 (2), lines 29 and 30, to delete the words "county registrar or other officer acting as registrar to the court during the trial" and substitute the words "proper officer," and to delete all from the words "and the expenses" in line 34 to the end of the sub-section.
This is merely a regulation of duties as between certain officials, the under-sheriff and the county registrar. The amendment scarcely concerns the public. As regards the deletion in line 34 of the text, that is purely a drafting amendment. The words are deleted because Section 66 makes adequate provision in this respect.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 25 to add at the end of Section 61 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) In every trial of an issue, whether civil or criminal, tried with a jury the proper officer shall take such steps as he shall think proper or the judge shall direct to provide the jurors with or to enable them to obtain reasonable refreshment in accordance with the practice heretofore observed during every period for which the judge may rise during the day without permitting the jury to separate."
This amendment continues the existing practice as regards supplying jurors with lunch and tea when necessary. The cost eventually falls on the State.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 25 to add at the end of Section 61 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) The duties imposed by this section on the proper officer shall be duties in relation to jurors and juries which have heretofore been performed by the under-sheriff within the meaning of Section 28 (which relates to the performance of such duties) of this Act, and the said duties so imposed on the proper officer shall accordingly be performed by the officer designated in that behalf by the said Section 28 and all expenses in relation to the performance of such duties shall be borne or defrayed in the manner directed by the said section."
This is similar in effect to amendments 20 and 32. It is administrative arrangement of duties between particular officials.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 25, Section 62 (1), lines 40 and 41, to delete the words "subject to the assent hereinafter mentioned being given and so long as the number of jurors is not" and substitute the words "unless the judge otherwise directs or the number of jurors is thereby."
This amendment gives power to the presiding judge to direct that a trial shall proceed with a jury of eleven or ten persons, if he thinks that course is a proper one. Under the existing unamended text a prisoner could refuse unreasonably to allow the trial to proceed if by some misadventure, one of the jurors fell ill during the course of the trial and had to leave the box. We are giving the judge discretion in the matter. I think in England there were one or two cases of the kind where one member of the jury became ill and the trial had to end; a new jury having to be summoned. We think it right to make provision for misadventure of that kind.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 25, Section 62, to delete sub-section (2).
This amendment goes with the last amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 26, Section 65, lines 12 and 13, to delete the words "or to the qualification or liability of persons for serving on juries at such inquests."
The Coroners Act passed during the current year exempts from service on coroners' juries all persons who are disqualified for or exempted from service on juries in the courts of justice. The intention is that all persons in the First Schedule of this Bill shall be exempt from coroners' juries as well as ordinary juries. The draughtsman thinks it better to omit the words mentioned in this amendment in order to secure the object aimed at. This is a purely drafting amendment. The intention remains now what it was before, but we are merely taking the draughtsman's advice as to how the intention may be best expressed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 27, First Schedule, to delete the line beginning "Persons in the Civil Service" and substitute therefor the words "Persons holding any public office and paid out of public moneys or holding office under a local authority and paid out of local rates."
This amendment is going back to the existing law which exempts the servants of local authorities from jury service as well as civil servants proper. We are satisfied that the old exemption was a reasonable one and ought not to be restricted. We are returning to that.
Does that include the officers referred to in the resolution of the Dublin County Council? A resolution was passed pointing out that the officers of local authorities should be exempted from attendance on juries and requesting the Minister for Justice to include all such officers in the list of exemptions.
Certainly.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 39 (Deputy Norton) —In page 27, after line 12 of the First Schedule, to insert the words "Officers in the service of local authorities in an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies"—not moved.
I move:—
In page 27, before the line "Registered dentists" to insert a new line as follows:—"Veterinary surgeons actually practising as such."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 41:—
In page 27, First Schedule, in the reference to "pharmaceutical chemists" to delete the words "who are the sole proprietors of a business and have no duly qualified assistant."
This amendment goes back to the existing exemption, which we are satisfied is a proper one. It has been pointed out that our attempt to restrict the exemption to chemists who have not qualified assistants would mean, in practice, that a chemist would take an unqualified assistant in preference to a qualified assistant so as to secure exemption from jury service.
I take it that this amendment covers any duly qualified chemist, even though he is not the proprietor of a shop. It would, I presume, cover the employees of a firm with a number of shops in Dublin and suburbs?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 42 (Deputy P.S. Doyle)—In page 27, at the end of the First Schedule to add the words "commercial travellers and commercial agents"—not moved.
I move amendment 43:—
In page 27, at the end of the First Schedule to add the words "Bona fide commercial travellers, who are authenticated members of recognised associations of that body."
This amendment is intended to deal with the case of the commercial traveller whose business takes him from his place of residence during a great part of the week. It is an inconvenience to any business man to have to serve on a jury, but that inconvenience is very much accentuated in the case of a commercial traveller who has to carry on business throughout the country. The ordinary business man can attend to his business for a few hours in the morning and then attend for jury service. He may not be called for service on the jury, and then he can return to his business for the remainder of the day. In any event, he can get back to his business in the evening, but the commercial traveller, if he is summoned to serve on a jury, loses his time, although he may not be called. He cannot do any business on that day, and there is a possibility that he may be called upon to attend the following day. The merits of the case are apparent, and there seems to be no necessity for argument. The only difficulty I apprehend will be with regard to the definition of "commercial traveller." I tried to meet that difficulty when I was drawing up my amendment. I tried to draw it up in such a way that it would be confined to those who are bona fide commercial travellers. But, notwithstanding that, I realise that some commercial travellers may do all their business in the city of Dublin, and that it is not altogether desirable that they should be exempted. The only parties to whom I would desire the amendment to apply would be commercial travellers who are obliged to do business throughout the country and to whom it is a serious inconvenience and a serious loss to be obliged to remain in their residential area for jury service.
I do not know what the views of the Minister on the subject are, but, since drawing up this amendment, I thought it could be improved upon, so that it would be confined definitely to those to whom it is intended to apply. If the Minister would accept a better definition and include it in the Bill in another place, I would be satisfied. I would be satisfied if the exemption were to apply to "persons employed in representing any manufacturer, merchant or wholesale house for the purpose of securing orders or promoting business, whose avocation necessitates their absence from their permanent place of residence on at least four nights per week throughout the year, periods of illness and annual holidays excepted." If the Minister were prepared to accept that definition, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The criterion for exemption from jury service has been, I suggest, not so much the question of hardship to the individual as the question of whether or not, in the balance, it was in the public interest that a particular class of men should be exempt from this necessity of serving on juries. It is not on the grounds of hardship to the person himself—hardship to the individual—that doctors or chemists or civil servants or—as we have agreed just now—the employees of local authorities are dispensed from jury service. It is on the grounds of the interests of the community. It is agreed that where there is a question of human life it might be a very serious thing if the doctor were absent from his area because of the duty of serving on a jury, or if the chemist were not there to compound prescriptions, and so on. The test has not been the amount of hardship to the individual. In this question of commercial travellers, that is really what is sought to be made the test. It is argued that it is a serious matter to ask a commercial traveller to attend for jury service and that he might be at a loss by having to attend. I cannot weigh his loss as against the loss of the waiter or the tram man who loses his wages as a result of his turn coming—as it does come once every three years or three and a half years—to serve, or to be available for service, as a juror. In Northern Ireland a committee considered this question of jury exemptions and other matters pertinent to the question of juries very carefully. They considered this claim for exemption on behalf of commercial travellers, and one can understand that to the community up there the question of commercial travellers would be one of considerable importance. The exemption was refused after the arguments had been very fully urged before the committee.
I do not think that it could be contended that from the point of view of public interest there is a case for the exemption of commercial travellers; and that, after all, ought to remain the criterion. They are, of course, a class of men who are useful and competent jurymen with a knowledge of life and the ways of the people, and with, of course, a particular equipment for deciding, say, issues that arise from the commercial life of the country, and they are men who would have a special interest in seeing that contracts—business contracts—were upheld, and so on. Sizing up the public interest, I see nothing to offset the loss from the jury panel of capable men, men very specially equipped almost for that particular service, and I see no public interest that clamours for their exemption. I am not prepared really to accept the criterion of individual hardship because that applies pretty well all round, to the waiter, the tramway man, and all those people who have little houses of their own and are rated in a sufficient amount to be liable for jury service. Their loss is as important to them as is the loss of profits to the commercial traveller or to his firm.
I am not inclined to accept this amendment at all for that reason. If, in fact, a commercial traveller is absent in the West, or, let us say, down in Minister on the day when it falls to his lot to be available for jury service, then I submit that once the facts are put before him, any judge, once he is satisfied as to the accuracy of the statement, will use the power that is vested in him by amendment 27, which was passed to-day, and he will cancel or mitigate the fine. That is, of course, the strongest case, the case of a man who is down the country on business on a particular day, and there is a case for putting the facts before the judge post-factum and asking for cancellation or mitigation of the fine imposed on him for absence. I know that special cases of that kind will arise, but I do not see any compelling argument for the exemption of entire classes of commercial travellers. Incidentally, it is a difficult thing to define a commercial traveller. It is rather like the elephant—you know him when you meet him, but it is rather a more difficult thing to define him.
There is pressure from practically every organised body for exemption. Every association sees a strong case for the exemption of its members, and the association of commercial travellers is actively looking for this exemption on behalf of its members. Incidentally, they all wish to have a reference in the statute to an association, so that people who are outside the association, and who perhaps, it is felt ought to be inside, will be driven in if they want exemption. If I were to accept, as I do not accept, the principle of the amendment, I would not accept, either in regard to this or any other class, the idea of specifically mentioning an association, but I am against the amendment in its substance quite apart from any question of form.
The Minister is not quite so plausible in this matter as he sometimes contrives to be. The parallel which he draws between the waiter or the tramway man and a recognised commercial traveller will not stand criticism. The commercial traveller by the very nature of his occupation, is away from home a large part of the season. He begins a tour which is mapped out for him as a rule by his employer. If he is not able to complete the rounds within a given time and get his orders, his value to the firm is considerably lessened. So it is not merely that he is inconvenienced by being obliged to take a journey back and make a case in the court for exemption. He is hit in other ways; the employer of the traveller is hit; the shopkeeper to whom he should submit his samples and from whom he should procure orders is likewise inconvenienced.
There is no parity between the class the Minister mentions and the class formed by the commercial traveller. The Minister likewise sees no hardship because there is a remedy, he says, in the amendment we passed just now. What is that? That while the judge may condemn with a fine the absent juror, when the case is put up to him he will commute the fine or he will pardon the technical offence. That involves two things alternatively; either the conscientious and, perhaps, nervous traveller leaves his work and makes an attempt to attend in court or, if he does not, he has to rely on the gamble that the judge will be of a pleasant mind and merciful. But suppose the judge will not, then he is suffering the double penalty of leaving his day's work—his week's work, practically—unaccomplished, and likewise being fined. The Minister strives also to lay down a principle. On what principle are barristers exempted?
In the interests of justice.
Barristers are notoriously men on the hazard. They attend in court in the hope of being feed by solicitors, and many of them, I grieve to say, go for years even at a time without that pleasant stimulus to activity. Yet because the barrister from the very nature of his occupation should not be called away from court, he is exempted. I do not comprehend why the Minister makes exemption of that type and sees reasons for being adamant in the case of a class of occupation which is far better entitled, from the very nature of it, to exemption. The Minister says the commercial traveller is a man of the world; he is acquainted with life; he understands contracts and the rest of it; a fortiori so does a barrister, and yet he is exempt. I suggest the Minister has no case in this matter except simply that he has made up his mind beforehand and is therefore not to be won over even by a member of his own party.
May I ask the Deputy a question? Am I to take it the Deputy is objecting to the exemption of barristers?
How childlike the Minister has grown in the past five minutes!
took the Chair.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 33.
Tá
- John Conlan.
- Sir James Craig.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Pádraig o hOgáin (An Clár).
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich. Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUighín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Magennis and C.M. Byrne; Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That the Bill, with amendments, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 24th March, 1927.