The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-17 00:00:00

[MORNING HERALD.?

The verdict returned in the case of Duncan
v. Trend, reported in the Herald of Saturday, furnishes a
striking instance of the value of that inestimable institution,
" Trial by Jury." In a country which acknowledges no power
superior to that of the law, it is essentially necessary that the
refinements, and we may add, the prejudices of persons who
administer the law, and who from habits of study, and of
veneration for technical forms, are apt at times to be led into
subtleties of a tendedcy dangerous to the public good, should
meet with an effectual controul in the unsophisticated reason
and feelings of the people. That controul has been exercised
on this occasion, and we cannot avoid saying, that never was
it more necessary or more useful. It is hard to blame the
Judges of the King's Bench—and we protest we do not at all
blame them—for the judgment which they lately delivered
in the case of Duncan v. Thwaites, which in every respect
was similar to that under consideration. The plaintiff in
both cases was the same—the question was the same, whe-
ther reports of proceedings which take place at a Police-
office are legal. Their Lordships decided that so far as
they are ex-parte, they are illegal ; and attending to the
dicta of their predecessors, for which Judges have, very pro-
perly, always a great reverence, we do not see how they
could have decided otherwise. Judges seldom refer to
the history of the period from which they borrow their autho-
rities. The naked proposition, as it is recorded in their books
of Reports, is all that they look to, and generally they feel that
they are bound by it. Their Lordships did not, and indeed
could not, take into their consideration, that at the period at
which most of the dicta on which their decision was founded,
Police reports did not frequently appear; did not watch the
vices and frauds hourly practiced in a vast metropolis; did
not detect the impostor and the swindler; gave no clue to the
midnight robber and murderer. Scarcely a day passes in our
times in which the advantage of these reports does not render
itself conspicuous to the most unprejudiced observer. Doubt.
less there is no good without its accompanying evil. To say
that police-reporting, or any other statement of facts disre-
putable to individuals, can be carried on without some degree
of prejudice or injury, is impossible. But the sun cannot
shine without injuring persons of weak eye-sight; nor can the
greatest blessings we enjoy, be received with equal benefit to
all. To please every one is a task very difficult indeed. And
if it was to be successfully contended, that nothing were to issue
from the Press hut that of which no one could complain, there
would be an end of any thing like fteedom or security. To say,
however, that Police reports prejudice Juries, is an assertion
wholly unwarranted by facts. And, with respect to the admi.
nistration of justice, not only do they not interfere with it, but
they assist it with an energy and an activity which it would be
wholly impossible to attain by any other means ; and though
the decision of the Court against these reports may be right as
to precedent, it is against the common sense of the country, and
never can be acted upon. We may say so now with the greater
confidence, because a most respectable and experienced Jury
have sanctioned this opinion. It is true that their verdict may
be set aside, as most probably it will he, by the Court, on
an application for a new trial. But it is fortunate for the
country that the Court has no power to enter a verdict for
the plaintiff. The case must be sent to a new Jury, and
we trust that no Jury can be found composed of men who
are willing to surrender their judgment and their undoubt-
ed rights to the dictation of any authority, however distin-
guished it may be. Should a Jury be again told that in this
case they have little more to do than to estimate the damages,
we do hope that they will resist such an admonition, and re-
buke it by the immediate exercise of their right to judge of the
whole case. This has now become a question between public
opinion and the opinion of the four Judges of the Court of
King's Bench. It cannot be too often repeated, that their Lord-
ships' judgment, in the case of Duncan v. Thwaites, is founded
on opinion, and nothing more. The principles upon which it
proceeds are not traced up to any fundamental maxim of the
Constitution ; they are not connected, either directly or by
just analogy-, with the common law; they are not sanctioned
by statute, or by a succesion of cases applying directly to the
point in issue, still less are they supported by. any general
reasoning, derived from the experience of the actual state of
society in this metropolis. This then is one of those whole-
some triumphs of the popular part of the Constitution which
go far to revive the affections of Englishmen to the laws and
institutions of their country ; and the mote so, as it is opposed
to a strong feeling the other way, expressed by the Judge who
tried it. For the opinion of that Learned Person we have the
highest reverence. No man ever occupied the Bench with a
mind more decidedly free from political bias, and the way in
which he expressed his satisfaction at our intention of carrying
the question to the highest tribunal reflects the greatest honour
on his liberality; and if this verdict does not set the general
question at rest, we-shall proceed with the more confidence to ap-
peal to that result. Mr. Brougham, at the close of his eloquent
and successful address to the Jury, alludedalso to our determina-
tion to bring the question before the House of Lords. Steps will
be taken in due course for that purpose, and though we cannot
expect that Lord Eldor, , Lord Redesdale, and Lord Gifford, will
decide differently from the Court of King's Bench, we trust that
the House will take it into their own hands, and not leave it as
a question of mere law to the Learned l.ords. An appeal from
four Judges to three, particularly when the Constitution in-
tended that it should be to the whole Peerage of the United
Kingdom, is not consistent with those principles of common
sense to which the public have a right to demand a rigid obe-
dience, in a question affecting their rights, their interests, and
their safety.