the following classes of cases are specially appropriated to this mode of trial, viz.:-Claims for damages in respect of injuries done to the person; libel or defamation; injury to personal or real estate when the title is not in question; breach of promise of marriage, seduction, or adultery; and for delinquency or quasi delinquency, for nuisances, and for reduction (the cancellation) of deeds on the ground of incapacity in the granter; actions against shipmasters and public carriers, on policies of insurance, charter parties, bills of lading, and the wages of seamen, &c. Common jurors must have real estate of the yearly value of £5, or personalty to the extent of £200. Special jurors must pay cess on real estate of £100 of valued rent, or be occupiers of houses of a yearly rental of £30. The exceptions as to age and professions are similar to what holds in England. Special juries can only be had by leave of the Court, and are rarely resorted to. The number of jurors is not less than thirty-six nor more than fifty. The parties alternately strike out names till the list is reduced to twenty, who are cited to attend-such jury consisting of two-thirds common and one-third special jurors. Each party, irrespective of challenge for special cause, is entitled to four peremptory challenges; and where there are several defendants, they are collectively entitled to four challenges. Payment of jurors practically is £1, if the trial does not exceed one day, and £2 if it is continued for a longer period. But, by consent, the daily fee of £1 is sometimes extended to each day's sitting. The expenses of jury trial are much greater in Scotland than in any other part of the kingdom, and are never less on an average than £300 a side. There can be no question that trial by jury is extremely unpopular, and great, and perhaps uncalled for, sacrifices are made to avoid it. The tendency now is to dispense with it as much as possible. During the last judicial year of the Supreme Court, the number of causes set down for jury trial did not exceed sixty-two, and of these it is estimated that not more than onehalf actually went to trial. The qualification of jurors in criminal cases is the same as in civil proceedings as regards common juries, but criminal juries receive no remuneration. If the prisoner pleads guilty, his plea must be signed by himself or his counsel. The prosecutor, however, cannot be compelled to receive such a plea, but may proceed to lead evidence before a jury after it has been recorded. When the plea is not guilty, the jury are at once balloted and sworn. The verdict may be pronounced by a majority of the jury when they are not unanimous; and, as is well known, when guilt is not clearly established, the middle course may be taken of returning "not proven;" supposed to be derived from the non liquet of the Roman law. There is no appeal from the judgment of the Court of Justiciary, either as to fact or law, but the Court of Session has an incidental criminal jurisdiction as to forgery or falsehood committed in any cause before it, and the sentence therein can be appealed to the House of Lords. The system of criminal jury procedure may be regarded as very efficient.

DISCUSSION.

The PRESIDENT said that the question how to get a good jury was considerably more important than many matters of dispute about theoretic questions to which their attention was sometimes confined. There was one thing on which they were all agreed-that the existing system greatly requires amendment. The wise suggestions which had been made were worthy of the attention of Parliament. He did not, however, agree that a man once acquitted should be tried again. The present law, with regard to that point, was humane and wise, and he would not alter it. He agreed that in some cases the substitution of the deliberations of a jury for that of a magistrate who could give six or nine months, was not to be desired, and he would rather contract than extend the operation of the law in that respect. Mr. Tennent had shown certain things in the Scotch system we ought to avoid, and several things worthy of imitation. A man's guilt on a former occasion should in no instance be mixed up in a new charge, which should be judged on its own merits alone. With regard to unanimity of juries, it was better to maintain the ancient system. He had had great experience for years, and he had seen no evil coming from it. Out of many instances he could name he would give one which took place in the county Monaghan. Two men were tried for murder. It was expected they would be hanged. The jury differed. They were tried again, and again the jury differed. They were again tried, and in the third case the jury also differed; and in every case a majority was for hanging the men. In the meantime new evidence came to light, and three other men were put on their trial, when it was proved that the first two men could not have been connected with the murder at all; and these three men were convicted to the entire satisfaction of the county, and every man hanged. If the Scotch system had been then existing in Ireland, those innocent men would have gone to their account. Cases like that made him slow to interfere with a system sanctified by the use of ages. With regard to the payment of juries he was doubtful. Behind the mere question of payment of juries, there was the great question of what they were to do in all public matters; whether or not men are to make small sacrifices to do public duty. The Grand Jury question which had been alluded to, was not really very important. He did not think the operation of the Grand Jury, in adjudicating upon a case before it went to petty jury, after that case had already been heard before a magistrate, was injurious, and sometimes it was very useful. As to the change of venue, it had been forgotten that the Court of Queen's Bench, at that moment, had the power of changing the venue in a proper case.

THE BANKRUPT LAW.

Mr. JAMES HERON read a paper on " Bankruptcy in Ireland." He commenced by referring to the frequency with which the general subject of bankruptcy had been brought before the Society, and to the endeavours made in Parliament to amend and consolidate the law. In Ireland the system of administration was utterly inadequate to the commercial wants of the country. The objects of the bankrupt law were happily expressed in a few words by Lord Russell when introducing the Bill in 1859-"To obtain as quickly as possible a full explanation and revelation of the affairs of a bankrupt, and, having ascertained what property he possessed, to divide that property amongst his creditors." We therefore want a law which will enable the creditors cheaply, quickly, and efficiently to realize and divide a

bankrupt's estate, one which will encourage and not deter the debtor when in a state of insolvency to surrender his property, and which will provide a competent court where all matters in dispute may be investigated and adjudicated upon with convenience and economy. It was scarcely necessary to say that the bankrupt law now in force in Ireland does not fulfil these conditions. It is notorious that a debtor's estate, estimated to yield under proper management ten shillings in the pound, often dwindles down, under the manipulation of the present system, to something like 2s. 6d., or even less; and in one celebrated case, which called forth public comment at the time, the accounts showed 7s. 6d., whilst the dividend out of the court was only 54d. in the pound. The result is, that merchants, rather than waste their time and money in bankruptcy proceedings, often submit to unfair settlements, and are thus led to encourage a practice prejudicial to commercial morality. He was disposed to borrow from the Scotch system of sequestration some suggestions which would be a vast improvement on the present system. First. He would make a thorough separation of the administration from the judicial department of bankruptcy procedure. He would limit the court to the administration of the law, and would place the realization of the estate under the immediate and exclusive control of the creditors themselves. No one will contend that a gentleman sitting in his office in Dublin can direct the sale of merchandise or collect debts at Belfast so well as a person conversant with the business and resident on the spot. One of our greatest grievances exists in the legal incompetence of our Irish Bankrupt Court to determine the questions of fact and law necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, and no thing can be more vexatious to the mercantile community than to be bandied about, first to one court to ascertain the law, and then to another to have it administered. At the first meeting after adjudication the creditors should appoint a committee to act as trustees in realizing and distributing the estate. This committee would have large powers, and be responsible to the court for the proper administration of the estate. They should be fairly remunerated for their services. The court should be at all times accessible for instruction and advice. He would abolish the distinction which now exists between trader and non-trader, and likewise do away with imprisonment for debt, except when the debtor was about to leave the country. The office of official assignee might also be abolished, as the business would be better done by a local clerk or accountant, as in Scotland. no good reason why the Assistant-Barrister of a county, or the Recorder in a town like Belfast, should not have jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and thus save the mercantile community from the present waste of time and money attending the court in Dublin. He would approve of the clause in the English Act of 1861 which enables a debtor to execute a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, which, if assented to by a majority in number, and by three-fourths in value within twenty-eight days after its execution, can be registered to have all the effects of an adjudication in bank

There is

ruptcy. He would alter the present vicious system of voting by creditors holding bills of exchange by permitting them to rank only for the net instead of the gross amount of their claim. He complained that the practice now pursued of striking dividends, not upon the sum originally due by the bankrupt, but on the amount due after deducting collateral payments, was unfair in principle, and should be altered. The provision in the English Act, which provided that the proceeds of all executions, if followed by an adjudication in bankruptcy within fourteen days of the sale, shall pass to the assignee, was a most important one for the checking fraudulent preferences, and should, therefore, be extended to Ireland. A creditor having a claim on two or more bankrupt firms, where one and the same person is a partner in each, is compelled in Ireland to claim on one estate only, while in England, under precisely similar circumstances, he can rank on each estate. The distinction kept up between land and chattels requires modification and amendment. IIe objected to the novel provision introduced into the Bankruptcy Bill of last session in the House of Commons. It provided that, where a bankrupt's estate pays ten shillings in the pound, he shall be absolutely free, but where the estate paid less his future earnings shall be liable to make good that amount of dividend. He thought this provision was inequitable towards the debtor, and would have a bad effect in practice. If a man is made a bankrupt, his business and property pass by the action of the law to his creditors, and if you take from him all he has, in common fairness you ought to relieve him from his debts. This is only equitable-on the one side a full, complete, and honest surrender of the property for a full and complete discharge on the other. If a debtor in difficulties has not this full discharge as an encouragement for a timely surrender of all his property, you give encouragement for delay, concealment, and every kind of commercial immorality. Credit is a voluntary act; if the debtor fails in honesty, punish him through the agency of the public prosecutor as you would any other criminal offence; but if he fails in means, through any misfortune which he could not help, then he ought not to be punished.

A paper was also read by Mr. GEORGE PERRY, on the Law of Bankruptcy, in which he maintained that the first principle of the law should be that no one who is unable to pay his debts should receive any protection until he proves that he deserves it; the second, that if the bankrupt be unworthy of protection he should be adequately punished; and as a deduction from these principles that no relief should be given without investigation. He compared the bankrupt laws of England and Ireland by the light of these principles, and suggested, among other things, that the English system of composition deeds should be abolished, and all arrangements between debtors and creditors be made under the supervision of the court; that the dishonest bankrupt should be punished by refusing to allow him to pass his final examination; and that in cases of gross extravagance, dishonesty, or gambling, the certificate should be wholly refused,

PRISON DISCIPLINE IN INDIA.

In addition to the paper by Miss Carpenter, which will be found. at p. 239:

Major G. HUTCHINSON, Inspector-General of Police, read a paper on "The Treatment of Criminals in the Punjaub." In 1861 he had been appointed, by Sir Robert Montgomery, to carry out a new system of police in the Punjaub, and had felt the responsibility of ensuring to the country a reasonable immunity from crime. Twenty thousand prisoners were passing annually through the gaols, and he was anxious to know whether they went out better or worse. The prison registers for fourteen years were examined, and inquiries instituted as to the existence, residence, and occupation of every habitual offender. A large number were brought under the surveillance of the police, and the fact established that the prison discipline was not really penal, nor reformatory, but demoralizing. The number of offences increased; in 1864 he had under surveillance 33,000; in 1865, 46,117; and in the latter year an outburst of violent burglaries by dacoits proved that criminal pursuits were carried on from father to son. In the Madras report for 1865-6 un increase of prisoners was shown of twenty-five per cent. in six years. In the North-west there was an increase in 1865 of three per cent. over 1864. Notwithstanding the improvements made, under Sir Robert Montgomery's orders, in diet, clothing, bedding, and sanitary arrangements, the mortality was very high. In the whole Punjaub the death-rate, as given in the Report for 1865, calculated on the daily average of prisoners in gaol, was 3.56; that in 1864 was 8.67; but in 1865 in some gaols it was much higher-for instance, Dhurrumsala in the Hills showed 9.82-and yet there was no epidemic. Again, in Goojerat, though the death-rate was 8.21, there was no epidemic. In 1864 epidemics attacked several gaols, and yet in no instance, apparently, was it shown that the epidemic either existed in the surrounding country, or was brought in. The rates were indeed high

This mortality was attributed, among other causes, to overcrowding and insufficient food. The standard allowance of space in barracks for each prisoner heretofore had been 400 cubic feet, no notice being taken of the lateral or superficial space enjoyed by him; so long as he got 400 cubic feet he might be lying within six inches of his neighbour, and adding to this the fact that each prisoner slept on the ground, with nothing but a bit of matting be

U