The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 12, 1853,

the Exchequer, a gratuity to the Lord Chief
Baron's coachman. The Commissioners now pro-
pose that such matters should be referred, in the
first instance, and without the ruinous cost and
vexatious delay at present inevitable, either to one
of the Officers of the Court, a County Court
Judge, or an Arbitrator chosen by mutual con-
sent, upon whose report judgment may be entered
as upon a verdict. This will, indeed, be a boon
to a certain class of litigants, and is so obvious an
improvement on the existing system, that it ig
only astonishing that it has not long since been
resorted to.
Another great and much-required amelioration
contemplated by the Commissioners is an altera-
tion in the qualification for Jurymen, which is to
be made higher than it is at present. An admixture
of persons of the class from which Special Jurymen
are taken is also recommended, so as to secure a
superior degree of intelligence in every case with-
out the expenses incidental to the services of a
Special Jury, which can, however, if desired, still
be obtained iu the same manner as at present—

the practise in that respect not being in any
degree interfered with.
Another, and a very important question, in
reference to the Trial by Jury, is that respecting
the "unanimity" now required, and the sugges-
tion for assimilating the practice to that in opera-
tion in Scotland, where the decision of the ma-
jority is binding. On that point the Commis-
sioners very properly consider that the present
rule requiring unanimity should be main-
tained. And they ground that opinion on the
facts, that the verdict of a mere majority
would fail to give satisfaction, inasmuch as the
consciousness that a portion of the jury were in
favour of the defeated party would materially in-
crease his dissatisfaction at the result, and would
probably lead to renewed litigation, while every
divided verdict might be urged, and not unrea-
sonably be entertained, as a very strong ground
for obtaining a new trial. One of the chief ad-
vantages of unanimity is, that it insures a full

and complete discussion and consideration of the
evidence offered in all its varied aspects, and that
the minority, in place of at once yielding, as they
would most probably do if the expression of a sim-
ple dissent removed the responsibility of be-
coming participators in an erroneous verdict,
will be enabled to resist conclusions from
which they feel themselves bound in con-
science to dissent. One great evil is, however,
noticed, and an adequate remedy suggested.
The Commissioners naturally feel that verdicts

should no longer be obtained by coercion. That
every proper accommodation and necessary refresh-
ment should be allowed to Jurymen during their
deliberations ; and that the health of gentlemen
who may honestly differ as to their final verdict
should no longer be injured, perhaps their lives
endangered, unless they are prepared to violate
the solemn obligations they have taken. We

have heard the- old adage, that " Wretches

hang that Jurymen may dine," and there
was, unfortunately, but too much truth con-
tained in the apophthegm. It is notorious that
the necessary agreement is occasionally obtained
in consequence rather of the " exhausted
powers" than the honest convictions of some of
the Jurors. lt is also suggested that—unless
the Jury require further time, and state that
there is a probability of agreement—the period of
deliberation should not exceed twelve hours, which
is amply sufficient for the consideration- of the
issues submitted for decision in all their varied
aspects. After that time, it is proposed that the
Jury should be discharged, leaving it optional
with the parties to try the cause again with a dif-
ferent Jury.
We have thus stated the views of the Commis-
sioners in reference to Juries—the most important
point of any on which they have reported. We
shall take another, opportunity of considering the
other recommendations, which, with few excep-
tion, are of a very impo'rtant character, and de-
serving of attention and respectful consideration.

It is striking to observe how ready the House
of Commons is to deal with one class of electoral
matters, compared with its vacillation and per-
plexity when obliged to vote upon another class.
Propositions to amend our constituencies can be
got rid of with ease by withdrawment ; even a
division is not needed. Mr. HUME, the Nestor of

the Radicals, backed by younger and earnest co-
adjutors, could be of ono mind with Lord JOHN
RUSSELL in requesting Mr. LOCKE KING to with-
draw his indubitably excellent motion for the ex-
tension of the franchise in counties to 101. house-
holders. Not a weld can be said against the pro-
posal, but the comparative independence of the new
voters. They would not be under, not absolutely
under, the dictation of the great territorial land-
lords. This was Lord JOHN'S real meaning when
lie spoke of the greatness of the change it would
introduce, and the prolonged discussion he should
see fit to raise upon it, if the House allowed Mr.
KING to introduce a bill. Therefore, as Lord
JOHN threatened it should waste the time of the
House, and as Reform was to be the Coalition
work of next year, even old and tried Liberals
agreed that county 10/. householders must wait
the pleasure of her MAJESTY'S Coalition. We
think the Government ought to have supported it
heartily, as an earnest of something worth hoping
for next spring, and as a guarantee so far of abetter
constituency in the very possible case of a dissolution •
before a new Reform Bill. Had the Lords
thrown it out, yet the Government would have
stood immeasurably better before people gene-
rally, and that in supporting no merely clap-
trap measure. We do not blame the Liberals.
They knew they should damage their object by
persisting. We, however, have none of Mr.
HumE's new-born faith in Lord JOHN'S promises.
He has once snore wielded his , old anti-Reform
weapon, the wet-blanket, with his wonted success,
and we doubt not he is fully prepared to give
Mr. BERKELEY also, and his supporters, the be-
nefit of his cold-water cure on the 10th. Yes, the
House (for Lord JOHN is now the House) is quite
prepared to deal with every proposition of elec-
toral reform. It has one course. ready for all
such intrusions--Lord JOHN'S wet-blanket policy.
Not so, however, in regard to Election Com-
mittee Reports. 'lt really hardly knows what in
the world to do with them. Nearly all the
motions founded on them are motions of pains
and penalties ; of pains and penalties for what
has been done in the spirit or in the letter by
nearly every Member in the House. Added to
this, in the case of many boroughs there is no
satisfactory evidence before the House as to
the extent of the bribery, and the Mem-
bers are in the awkward predicament of being
called on to vote in ignorance and doubt. Of course
Englishmen in such a case must give the benefit
of the doubt to the borough. It would be hard
indeed to risk disfranchising for the session a
whole honest constituency because of the corrup-
tion of a few voters. We want, however, some
better machinery, if possible, for working out the
entire facts of each case.
Still more was it perplexed, and reasonably so,
with the motion of Sir JOHN SHELLEY to prose-
cute Sir FREDERIC SMITH for bribing JOSEPH
GREATHEAD by procuring for his son the office of
a letter-carrier. No one will suspect us of any
merciful leanings to bribery in any form ; we con-
demn entirely Sir F. SMITH'S reported act. We
consider him really guilty of bribery, yet we must
ourselves have recommended the culprit to mercy.
There were, we must in all candour say, so many
things which mitigated the guilt of the man,
however wrong the'thing. With Mr. DRUMMOND'S
amusing caricature of the universal corruption
of Lords, Commons, and elevators (we wonder he
did not include her MAJESTY), though we enjoy
his genial humour, we cannot sympathise. There
is, however, no doubt that situations under Go-
vernment have come to be regarded as almost the
perquisites of Government supporters. Through-
out the whole kingdom, the Liberals or the Con-
servatives expect to procure for their own man
even a walking post to a village, according as the
Postmaster-General is a Whig or a Tory. Mem-
bers of Parliament unquestionably expect to have
this humble patronage in their hands. We could
name instances in plenty. One is just now
before us, every way a perfect parallel to the
WELLS and Cowsr4a, case. In America it is in-