Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-05 00:00:00

TRIAL BY JURY.

THE unsuccessful attempt of Lord CAMPBELL, in the
House of Lords, last week, to effect a material change
in one of the most important and fundamental laws
of the kingdom, namely, trial by jury, has read a
useful lesson, we doubt not, to the country ; and, let
us hope, more especially to that class of the people
from which our juries are commonly taken. That
the measure by which the learn6d ford proposed to
accomplish the.objectionable change,—which was to
do away with the necessity of juries being unanimous
in their verdiets,—had ,some good Point's in it, we do
not deny. Its main features were, that all those"
compulsory regulations as to the locking up the jury
without fire 'or refreshments should be done away
with, that when they retired they should have a
comfortable room afforded them, in which to consider
their verdict ; and that if after six hours' delibera-
tion they agreed upon a verdict by a majority of nine
to three, such verdict shall be taken ; but should they
not agree in that proportion, or, in other words,
should the majority be less than nine, the verdict
should be void, and the jury discharged. Now several
of these provisions, we say, might be all very well—
might, indeed, in some respects, be great improve-
ments. But to be content with the verdict of a
majority, instead of a unanimous one, would, it
appears, in the opinion of lawyers as eminent even
as Lord CAMPBELL, be a dangerous experiment, to
say the least of it. Lord LYNDHURST, for one, was
decidedly opposed to it, from a conviction, the result
of his long professional experience, that unanimity
in a verdict was much more calculated to promote
the ends of justice ,than would be the case with a
mere majority. The present law, his lordship con-
tended, had worked admirably for some hundreds of
' years, and had received the approval of some of the
most learned lawyers from time to time ; therefore a
very clear case should be made out before they con-
sented to make any alteration in such a law ; and he
did not consider that his noble and learned friend
had made out such a ease. The LORD CHANCELLOR
was of the same opinion.; and, in delivering it, he
quoted the authority of a judge of considerable
experience to show that juries were very seldom
discharged without agreeing, and during the many
years that he (the LORD CHANCEL OR) was practis-
ing, only one such case of that description had come
under his notice, and that was a ease to which the
Bill would not apply. He further contended that
unanimity in a verdict not only imposed on jurymen
a responsibility in considering the evidence on a
trial, but rendered them more important in each
other's eyes ; adducing in support of this assertion a
case in which he had been engaged, where one
special juryman succeeded in inducing his fellow
jurymen to alter their opinion, and by that means
saved a respectable man from ruin, whereas but for
the unanimity, the result might have been different.
The feeling of the House of Lords was so strong.
against the proposed change, that the measure for
affecting it was rejected by a majority of more than
three to one.

The subject, we say, is very important one; and
although nothing has come, directly, of the endeavour
to effect so hazardous a change, yet, indirectly--
through the discussion of the question—much good
may arise. The fact is, that we require to be re-
minded, every now and then, of the grave responsibi-
lities under which juries are placed, and of the great
obligations under which they lie to, in the words of
their oath—" a true verdict give according to the
evidence." It is not denied—it never has been—that
trial by jury is sometimes found inadequate to the
administration of equal justice. " This imperfection,"
observes an eminent writer on juritrudonee, " takes

THE .NORTHERN TIMES TUESDAI, APRIL 5, 1859

place chiefly in disputes in which some popular pas-
sion or prejudice intervenes ; as when a_ particular
order of men 'advance- claims upon the rest of the
community, which was the rase of the clergy con-
tending for tithes ; or where an. order of men are
obnoxious by their profession, as are officers of the
revenue, bailiffs' followers, and other low ministers
of the law; or where one of the parties has an
interest in common with the general interest of the
jurors, and that of the other is opposed to it, as in
contests between, landlords and tenants, between
lords of manors and the holders of estates under
them ; or, lastly, where the minds of men are
influenced by political dissensions or religious hatred.
These prejudices," he justly adds, "act most power-
fully upon the common people, of which order juries
are made up." But in all such cases, the great cause
of derelictitm of duty is the disregard of their obli-
gations,—=their yielding to passion, prejudice, or
party or private interests, rather than sacrificing all
these influences to the fulfilment of their oaths. It
is in this, unhappily, as it is, now-a-days, in so many
things else, that so many' men will not be content, to
be controlled by obligations, however solemn they
may be, against their wills, or their predilections.
They presume to judge, when it is their duty to
submit. There is nothing in society that mankind
have better to trust to, in their intercourse
with one another, than one another's oaths. And
hence it is that legal adjudications, which govern
and affect every right and interest on this side the
grave, of necessity proceed and depend upon oaths.
So that the disregard of such an obligation, in its
general consequence, strikes at the security of
reputation, property, and even life itself. Juries,
unfortunately, sometimes forget it ; and it is most
apt to be forgotten where one or two stand out
Against the rest. They do not remember, or will
not heed it if they do, that it is not according to
their own conceit, or their own self-will, but " ac-
cording to the evidence," they are to come to their
conclusions. The judge is the dispenser of the law of
the case ; and he imparts to the jury the benefit of his
erudition and experience, to aid them in correctly
comprehending the full force and character of the
evidence on which they are sworn to decide. " The
trial by assize," says another great authority, "be
the action civil or criminal, public or private, personal
or real, .is referred for the fact to a jury ; and as they
find it, so passeth the judgment." And would our
juries but conform to this most equitable principle—
would they but give less regard to their mere
opinions, so apt as these are to be influenced by
passion, or prejudice, or self-interest, and more heed
to that-which has the first claim of all upon their
rogpect, and their reverence, the obligation of the
oath by which they are bound to decide on the
evidence, there would, we are persuaded, be much
fewer instances of disagreement in the jury-box, and
much less pretext, therefore, for any such change as
that very questionable one which. Lord CAMPBELL
has been endeavouring to get enacted.