The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-08-17 00:00:00

ile .3tottrpragt Otsertrer.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1872.

THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM.

Among the numerous bills which were sacri-
ficed during the past session, after more or less
progress had been made with them, was the
Juries Bill, which would undoubtedly have effec-
ted considerable reform in connection with the
entire jury system, but which would not have
included a reform which we consider is impera-
tively called for. Some such bill as that which
was abandoned will doubtless be introducednext
session, and we think we shall be able to show
that the reform about to be advocated ought to
be aimed at. Meanwhile the subject is one of
continuous interest, and is moreover one which
our grand juries have the power of keeping be.
fore the notice of the judges, the press, and the
public. The reform we would urge is the entitsi
abolition of the grand jury and the enlargement
of the social area from which the petty juries
are drawn. The jury system is of Norman ori-
gin, as is indicated by the terms grand jure and
petit jure. "Petty jury "is by no means a cora-
plimentary title, and if grand jury were abo-
lished there would simply remain " the jury."
And that this abolition would be a great public
benefit, without in any way weakening the power
of justice, a little consideration will show.
The jury system has been called the Pena-
-1 ditun of our British liberties, this classical term
we may remind the reader, being in allusion to
I the shield of Miners-a, the goddess of wisdom.
lint whether the grand jury is a shield of wis-
dom is very doubtful. The grand jury took its
rise in times when the administration of law
was marred by a great deal of tyranny, mixed
up with political considerations, and very little
amenable to public opinion, for the press did not
exist, and public meetings, as we now understand
the term, were unknown. Under such circum-
stances the grand jury was a valuable institution
and was really 11 guardian of public liberties It
stepped iti between the commitment of a prisoner
by a subordinate judge and the trial by a higher
tribunal before a petty jury. Bat in modern
times there is no need for such intervention. It
is quite sufficient for an accused person to un-
dergo a preliminary trial before a stipendiary
magistrate or justice of tire peace, and then he
fairly tried before the tribunal to which the ac-
cused is committed, with the safeguard of the
ordinary jury. In common-sense language, the
action of the grand jury may be thus described.
A man is committed for trial, and some four-
and-twenty gentlemen solemnly meet, hear a
few witnesses for the prosecution, and deliber-
ately decide either that the man shall be tried,
or that he shall not be tried. In the first case
all the labours of the grand jury go for nothing;
they simply decide that which had been decided
before. In the second case the grand jury stir.
tually condemn the sitting magistrate or justices
of the peace, and they liberate a man whom it
would always be better to try fairly. The grand
jury know nothing of law, and are necessarily
very imperfectly acquainted with facts, and yet,
under these very disadvantageous circumstances
they really proceed to try—not the prisoner, but
the committing magistrate, who is snubbed and
blamed by the very action of discharging the
former. If the accused is thus dischsexed,
there may be. and often is, a failure of justice ;
while, if the accused is sent before the petty jury
the cause of justice is not advanced one jot.
The grand jury system is no safeguard against
unjust imprisonment pending trial, for this jury
site concurrently with the petty jury, and merely
sends the prisoner into 'the other room.- The
grand jury system also inflicts serious hardship
on numbers of the middle classes, who are use-
lessly taken away from their business and pro-
fessions, without option and without remunera-
tion ; and it moreover delays the course of jus-
tice, and renders it more costly to the public
generally and to prosecutors specially, the latter
class having quite enough burdens to bear in any
case. In these days of potent public opinion
the institution of the grand jury has very, very
little to recommend it, and much more than we
have urged could be said against it. One jury,
composed of men of varying social position,
would be adequate to the ends of justice, and we
hope that the next session will see such a reform
effected.