The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-10-12 00:00:00

JURIES AND WORKING MEN.

On the above subject The Times publishes the following
letter :

Sir,— Only on my return from a tour to-day did I
see the resolution of the Trades Union Congress claim-
ing for working men admission to the jury-box and
your comments thereon. Let me add the results of
actual experience.

For thirteen years it has been my duty to deal with
the jurymen at Middlesex Sessions. The practice is to
summon 80. There are 24 Sessions in each year. Con.
sequently, I have had before me, in round numbers,
upwards of 24,000 jurymen. Excuses of various kinds
are advanced by those summoned, and upon these I
have to adjudicate. Among those summoned are
always some working men, often so many that I
have difficulty to complete the jury panel with-
out them. The qualification of a juror is high—
viz., the occupation of premises rated at £3O per annum.
At first I was surprised, as your readers will be, that
a working man could afford to live in so expensive a
house. The explanation is that he rents the houses
and underlets the rooms. Of the 80 summoned at each
Sessions sometimes as many as 15, and seldom leas than
six, are working men, who, therefore, now actually
enjoy the very privilege claimed by their fellow men
at Bristol. Taking eight as the average, in these 13
years I have had before me no less than 2,500 working
men, who were not merely privileged to be jurymen,
but called upon to perform the duties of the office.
What has been their view of that privilege? With-
out a solitary exception, all have entreated to be
excused on the ground of certain loss of their wages
and probable loss of their employments, inasmuch as
employers could not allow their works to stand still
while the workman was in the jury box!
This claim for exemption is so reasonable that, al-
though it is not an excuse in law, it has been my prac-
tice to excuse them by favour if a sufficient number of
jurors can be found without them. Sometimes the
working men are so numerous that the necessary
numbers cannot otherwise be completed. In such
cases I divide the work, requiring so many to attend
on each day. If, then, the working men are found to
protest so unanimously and so strongly against service
on the juries of Middlesex Sessions alone, what would
be their indignation if compelled to serve also on all
other juries
In the few cases in which I have been compelled to
retain them, I have no cause to complain of incompe-
tency. But I am obliged to exercise some choice.
Many are obviously unlit, as draymen, bricklayers,
carmen, porters, and such like. I select the handi-
craftsmen, as jewellers, pianoforte makers, and others
of the better class.

It seems to be forgotten that if the qualification
were lowered, swarms of the unfit would be admitted,
and it would be impossible to invest in any officer the
determination of intellectual competency. Were the
jury-box opened to the lowest classes, it would be
necessary to change the law that requires unanimity
in verdicts. There are few criminals who could not
find some occupier of a hovel to sympathise with
them, and one friend among the twelve suffices to
defeat justice.
But payment is asked for as a remedy for the loss of
wages. This would be but a trifling compensation to
the skilled workman for loss of present wages and
probably of future employment. It would be deemed
a boon only by the class who would be the least de-
sirable.
If any change be made in the material of juries, it
should be rather in the opposite direction. The quali-
fication should be raised, and all within that qualifica-
tion should be required to serve. In the Criminal
Courts, at least, the distinction between special and
common jurymen should not be recognized, nor should
the persons forming the Grand Juries at Quarter Ses-
sions be exempt from Service on the petty jury, save,
of course, at the Sessions at which they perform the
former duty, or perhaps for twelve months after such
service.—Yours faithfully.
EDWARD W. Cox, Chairman of the Second
Court of Middlesex.