4. c. 91) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that consolidated and amended statutes for Ireland related to juries.

[1] In 1806, the Commission on Public Records passed a resolution requesting the production of a report on the best mode of reducing the volume of the statute book.

[2] By the early 19th-century, English criminal law had become increasingly intricate and difficult to navigate due to the large number of acts passed that had accumulated over many years.

[5] During debate, the bill was opposed by George Evans, 1st Baron Carbery, who argued it would allow illiterate and non-English speaking jurors to serve, the William Howard, 4th Earl of Wicklow, who claimed Ireland's existing jury system was working well, William Best, 1st Baron Wynford, who contended it was inconsistent with the recently passed Coercive Bill, Robert Jocelyn, 3rd Earl of Roden, who cited opposition from Irish judges and other peers, who argued it was inappropriate to align Irish and English jury systems before addressing broader societal differences.

[6] In support of the bill, Ulick de Burgh, 1st Marquess of Clanricarde, argued it would increase Irish confidence in legal institutions and William Plunket, 1st Baron Plunket emphasized it was based on Sir Robert Peel's earlier reforms, not Daniel O'Connell's influence.

4. c. 8), to fix practical implementation issues with the original jury selection system, particularly around timing and administrative procedures.

[9] Previously, Justices were required to hold October General or Quarter Sessions in each Division of Irish counties The law modified the timing to be "not less than One Month nor more than Six Weeks after the First Day of October" for special sessions to examine juror lists.

This had caused practical problems with impanelling juries according to the original act's requirements.

The amendment explicitly validated previous jury selections that may have deviated from the original act's procedures, declaring that jury returns and panels made under these circumstances would be considered lawful, even if they didn't strictly follow the previous act's requirements.

[11] The act addressed practical difficulties in holding special sessions, particularly when insufficient numbers of Justices were available at prescribed times.

Under the new provisions, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was empowered to issue warrants establishing alternative arrangements for these special sessions.