This is an amendment which I could not possibly accept and which I would ask the House to reject. As the law stands at present, the empanelling is done in certain counties by the sheriff, but, as I explained on the Second Reading, wherever the office of sheriff has become vacant in recent years, under the Juries Act, 1927, the function of sub-sheriff or sheriff is discharged by the county registrar. All that this Bill says is that the county registrar should take up in certain cases the duties which would devolve upon him in any event if the office of sheriff became vacant, even though the office of sheriff has not become vacant.
In other words, it is merely accelerating what was thought to be right in 1927, before any question of the introduction of a Bill precisely of the nature of this Bill was in contemplation. What are the advantages which are proposed to be derived from having the work that is now being done by the sheriff in all counties except four done by the county registrar, not only in the four counties where it is now being done by him but also in other counties where it may appear to be advisable? What is the object of having it done by the secretary of the county council or by a town clerk? It is, so to speak, a mechanical duty. The lists are there; there is no picking, no selecting, no duties of any kind. Is it suggested that the county registrars are so completely dishonest that they cannot be trusted to carry out this purely mechanical duty honestly? That is what the amendment means, and nothing else. They are the proper persons to do it, and I cannot see any reason why they should not do it, except one, and that is that this amendment was put forward so that, by having the work done in the county council offices, entire publicity would be given to the jury panel. It is with the object of giving publicity to the jury panel that this amendment was put forward. I can see no other reason for it.
