The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 30, 1859.

SHAME ILIABEET.-(THIS DAY.)

ORDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS.

Share ;Paid. I Closing 1 Business
! Railways. 1 • Price.
1.4.10 Amberg., Notting. Bost.
and Eastern Julnwon 10 6 64
50 Belfast and Ballymena all
13.14 Bin, Wo'., and Str.Val all 74 84
Stock Birk., Lane., and Chesh
Junction lOO 62 64
25 Blackburn
25 Blyth and Tyne all 32 35
Stock Bristol and Exeter
Stock Caledonian
Stock Chester and Holyhead -
50 Cork and Bandon all ---
20 Cork, Blkrock,&Passage all
20 Cornwall all 5 54
10
DE,OO: B
Af A ',eves. no div { all
0
until6p.c.per an. all
hasbeen pd.toß.
50 Dublin andßelfast June. all
25 Dun.,Perth,& Abr.junc all 8 9
Stock East Anglian lOO 15 161
Stock Eastern Counties lOO 5 601 594
Stock Eastern Union A Stock 100 45 47
Stock Do. do. B Stock 100 30 32
25 Do.Nw.A.(lte.E.U3ds) 84
25 East Kent all 13 15
Stock East Lancashire lOO 92 93 924
20 East Suffolk
10 Do
Stock Edinburg and Glasgow 100 72 73
Stock Edin.,Perth, & Dundee. 100 27 271
10 Forth & Clyde Junction all
Stock Furness
Stock Glasgow & South Westn loto 93 94
10 Great North of Scotland all 10 101
Stock Great Northern lOO 1024 103
Stock Do. do. A Stock lOO 86 88
Stock Do. do. B Stock lOO 132 134
Stock Gt. South.& Wstn.(lreld) 100 105 106
Stock Great Western
Stock Do.Str.Vl.Rail Gua.Stk lOO 56 68
12 Irish South Eastern all
50 Lancaster and Carlisle all 83 87
164 Do. Thirds
1613 4 Do. New Thirds l6 11 121 p
Stock Lancashire & Yorkshire 100 94 :II •
16 Do. do. F £l6 6
Id
9 Do. do. £9 shares 7
3 Do. West Riding Union 1 --
20 Do. Southport
Stock London and Blackwall all 67 69 674
Do.Newiss.at £slosp.sh — —
Stock Lon.,Brighton &S.Coast 100 112 113
Stock London & North Westn 100 944 05 944 1
121 Do. Eighths
Stock London& South-Westn lOO 924 921 924
25 L'derry & Coleraine
25 L'derry & Enniskillen all —,
Stock Man., She., & Lincoln lOO 38 384
10 Metropolitan
Stock Midland lOO 101 1011 101 i 4 i
Stock Do. Birming. & Derby. 100 74 76
50 Mid. Gt. West. (Ireland) all
25 Dhares all
100 Nestle and Carlisle all
25 New., Aber., & Herefd all 11 12
10 Newry & Armagh (def.) 9
20 Newry, Warpt., & Roe all
Stock Norfolk lOO 60 604 61
50 North. Counties Union 3l 31 I d
Stock North British lOO 60 604 604 it
Stock Nor.Dev.Rail.&Dk. Stk lOO
Stock Do.A Stk.— Arec.no div
with 6p.c.hasbeenpdß 100
Stock Do. B Stock
Stock North-Eastn.--Berwick 100 921 121
25 Do. do. G.N.E.Purchase 1613 4 11 11 d d
Stock Do. Leeds lOO 464 17t
Stock Do. York lOO 764 761
Stock North London lOO 102 104 1031
10 N. &S.Westn., Hampstd
and City Junction f3 is.
20 North Staffordshire l7l 41 41 d
20 North-Western
10 No. & Sou. W. Junction all 7 8
Stock Oxford, Wor.,& Wolver lOO 331 341
10 ' Peebles all --
20 Portsmouth l9 7 5 d
10 Rhymney lO
;took Scottish Central lOO 110 112
;took Scoth. N.E., Aber. Stock 100 261 27
itock Do. Scottish Mid. Stock 100 84 85
;took Shropshire Union lOO 46 48
10 Sittingbourne & Sheer all 31 21 d I
>took South Devon lOO 391 401
;took South-Eastern ' lOO 71.4 MI 701
;took South Wales
20 SouthYorks.&Riv.Dun all 60 66
20 Do. do lB
20 Staines, Wok., & Wok all 8 11
25 Stockton & Darlington all 361 371
25 Do. do. 1855 7
25 Do. do. 1858 4l
Stockton & Hartlepool 161
;took Taff Vale ' 100
Itock Do. Preference, No. 1 .
100
25 ThamesHavenDk&Rall 22
ltock Vale of Neath lOO 65 08
;tuck Waterford & Kilkenny 100
50 Waterford & Limerick all
20 West Cornwall
10 W-end Lon. & Cry. Pal all
5 Do.A.—Arecv.nodiv.till
7 p.c. has been pd. to B all 2 3
5 Do. B all 6 61
20 West London all
10 Do. Ist Class all I
20 Do. 2d Class all

Stock

Stock
Stock

12
Stock

Stock
10
Stock
Stock

20 '
Stock
50
Stock
Stock
Stock

Stock
Stock
25
Stock
Stock',
Stock

Stock)

Stock
Stock
Stock.
Stock,

Stock
Stock
Stock

Stock 1
Stock

Stock
Stock

PREFERENI

Sharet Railways.

stock
Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock

stooki

Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock

Stock
26

13t
20
Stock
Stock
Stock-
Stock
Stook
Stock

Blythe and Tyne 1(.. per
C. pref. (issued at 1.50)'
Brie. & Exet.4p.ct.Stock
Do. do. do. Shares
Caledon £lO, 41 per cent
Do. Quar. Shares, No. 2.
Chester & Holyhd, ape
Do. do. 5 p. et.
Cork & Bandon, 5/ p. c.
Dun. Perth,& Aber. Jun.
E.Angn. Class A 7 & spc
!Do. do. Class B 6 pc
Do. do. Class C 7 Pc • • • •
E. Coun. Ex. 5 p et. No.l
Do. do N 0.2
Do. New 6 per et. Stock
Eastern Union, 4 per ct.
East Lanc. 6 per et
E.& W. York. Jcn. fifths
Edin.&Glas. 5 pc shares
Edin. Perth,& Dun. 4 pc.
Furness, 5 per cent
Glas. &S West. a. 5Pc
Great. Northern, 5 p. ct
Do. 5 pc Redm.,lop.c.pm
Do. 41 p. o. do. do.
Do.sp.c. Redm.,s pc. pm
Gt. Nh. of Scotld, Ist Df
5 Gt. Sn.& W (Ireland) 4
p. et. pref. Stock
Great West. (Berks and
Hants) Ext. 5 p.ct. .
Do. Redeemable, 41
Do. Redeemable, 4 p. et.
Do. Irredeemable, do.. .
Do. 5 p. ot. Redeem. Pref.
Do. Birm. Pref. Shares
Gt. West. Ches. 8 p.c.pf.l

Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock.
Stock
Stock

shares
Do. do. 5 p. ct. pref
Do Birming. guar. stock
Do. Chester guar.shares
Do. do. do
Do. do. do.

ILan. & York 6 p.c. stock
Lon.&Brig.spc.,gu. No.l
IDo. pref., 5 p. c. ...No. 2
Do. New gua., 6 p. ct.
Do. do. 5 p. c. No. 9
Lon. & N.W.Cov. 8.11: ur -
caton, 5 p. ct.
Lon. &S. W, 7 p.ct. stock,
I ate 3d shares
Londondy & Cole, shs
Londondy.& Ennis sh
Man.,Sh., & Lin., 6 p. ct
Do. £6
Do. 31 per cent.
31aryport & Car., 4 p.o.
Do. 4 per cent

Stock)
Stock
Stock!
Pk
giock
Stock
Stock
Stock
10s.
10
1.0.6.

Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock
Stock

25 )
25 f 1
stock,

ARES.

P.;,4.1 Closing Business
Price. Done.

all
1 100
6

Do.
Mid. Con. 6 p. c. Stock
Do.Con.Bris.&Bir.6p.ct
Do. 4i p. c. pref. stock
Do. with option till 1860
Do. Leic. & Hit.pref.
Newport,Aber,&c.
p. c. redeem, at 5 p.,,,,rtni
Do. Perpet, 6P. ‘..). with
option till 1866
Norfolk D....eb.ip.c.shares
Do. sp. i..xt.Stock,lB46
Do. 54p. c. Pref. do. 1847
Do. W AV. VM.Ex. Sk 1847
Nort;ft British, 5 per cent
Do. New, Rua. 5 per cent
Nth.Dev.Rail.&
N-East. irred. 4 p.c. Deb.
Do. Berwick, 4 p. c. Pref.
Do. do. do.
Do. Leeds, 6 p. c. No. 1.
Do. do. Quarters, 1846. .
80. York, H. & S. Thirob.
North Staffordshire
& Wol. 6 pc. lst
')o. do. do., 2,1 g•ua
Do. 4i p.c. Ts..:u.stk.in perp
Scottish. Central, new in
Scottish N.-Eastern deb

Do. 34 per c. pref. stock
Do.Aberdeen.gua.6pc.
Do. 7 p. c. pref. stock.
South Devon, Ann. 10s.
Do. Fixed 44 percent.
South Eastern (Reading
Ann., 1.0.6.)
Do .4.i per cent
Do. Fixed 4i p.c. Ist is
Do. New do., 2d issue
South Wales, gua. 4 p.c
Do. 1/ per cent
S.-Yorkshire, 4 p.c. gua
Stockton and Dar. 5 p.e

l.p per. do cei
virarero
Kilkenny,
I 6 per cent.-

LINES LEASED

100
100
100
100
all

all
100
100
100
100
100

124}

T FIXED RENTALS.

Railways. 'paid. Leasing I Closing Business
Co.'s. Prioe. Done.

Bedford and Bletchley
Buckinghamshire
Clydesdale Junction .
Colchester, Stour Val.
E.Lineolnshire,g.Bp.e.
E Union,HarwichShs.
Do. Woodbridge
Gls.Barr.&Neils,Drct
Do. New
Gloster& Dean Forest
Hartlpool.Dck.&Rail
Hull and Selby

ILndc N.W
Ln tic N.W
Caledonin'
E.U.&E C
Gt. North.
E.Counts.

Caledonia
Do.

98 100'
102 104
17 18
142 144
4} 44

Do. Shares •
Do. Shares
London&Greenwich
Do. Preference .. • •
Lon.,Tilby.&Soutend.
Do. Barking Shares
Lowestoft, gua. 4p. ct
Do. 6 per cent
Manc.,Buxtn. & Matk
Midsb. & Redcr, g.6p.e
Mid.BradfordPrf. Stk.
Newmarkt.,BuryEx I
guaranteed 5 p. c. )
Northn.& Eastn. 5 p.c.
Do. do. 6 Der cent
Do. Fixed 5 per cent.
Preston and Wyre. I
Do. shares A.
Roystn,Hitch.,& Shep
Shf.Roth.&Gol.g.sp.e,
Shrewsbry& Hereford
South Staffordshire ..
Woar Valley, g. 6p. c.
Do. do

Gt. West.
Yk.N.&Br
Yk.N.Md.
Do.
De.
S. East
Do.
Peto &Co
Do.
Norfolk
Do.
LN W&M
Stk.& Dar
Midland .
E.Counts.
Do.
Do.
Do.
L&N SY)
& L.Yk.
Do.
Gt. North.
Lan.& Yk
T Brassoy
M'Clean
Stk.& Dar
Do.
Gt. West
L.&Brgtn

liou 111

1094
54

64 65
115 120
93 94

24- 31

96 98
i if)
57 59

1137 140

91.
11 n
loi

Wilts and Somersei::
Wimbledon& Croydn.

DOCKS.

90 92
8 9

i Paid 1 Closing
Price.

100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 102 104
18 -•

Business
Done.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY).
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from Haverford -
west, complaining of the exclusion of Dissenters from ad-
ministering trust funds of grammar schools.
The Duke of SOMERSET presented similar petitions.
SECOND READINGS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following bills
were read a second time :—Falmouth Docks and Harbour,
Much Wenlock and Severn Junction Railway, Norwich
(City) Water Works.
THIRD READINGS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
National Fire and Life Assurance ; Price's Patent Candle
Company; and Trinity House cf Leith.
THE ITALIAN QUESTION.

The Earl of MALMESBURY-IVfy lords, I beg to offer
a short explanation on the subject of a report which appears
in some of the papers, of what I stated last night with re-
spect to the Congress. It is very seldom that any of your
lordships have cause to correct the reports which are made
of your lordships' speeches, for they are almost always ren-
dered with an accuracy that is most extraordinary. But,
my lords, it is reported that I stated last night that on the
18th of this month, the Russian ambassador called on me
and gave me notice that his Government world propose a
congress of the Five Powers. Now what I said was, that
on the 18th inst. the French ambassador called on me and
informed me that the Russian Government intended to pro-
pose a congress; and that upon this statement, made to me
by the French ambassador, we anticipated the intention of
Russia, and sent a proposal to St. Petersburg, on the basis
of which the proposal of Russia to us was formed. I think
it is right to make this statement, because it relates entirely
to a matter of fact. (Hear, hear.)
[This explanation has no reference to the report in
2he:Sun, which gave the noble lord's words correctly.]

JURIES IN CIVIL CASES BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL movd the second reading of this bill,
in a speech of great length, but as scarcely a single sentence
reached the gallery perfect, it is only possible to give a very
meagre outline. The noble lord commenced by alluding to
the srhallness of the attendance, and admitted that there
was a very great attraction elsewhere (referring to the speech
which Mr. Gladstone was delivering in the other house)—
but he contended that the bill was one of great importance.
He did not propose to interfere with the unanimity of juries
in criminal cases, with regard to which the present prac-
tice undoubtedly worked well. At the worst it only led to
.the acquittal now and then of a guilty person ; and it would
be far better that 10 guilty men should escape than that one
innocent one should be condemned. But with regard to
civil trials, the case was very different. In criminal in-
dictments there was seldom more than one issue sub-
mitted to the jury ; in civil suits there were often several ;
and their lordships must bear in mind that a wrong decision
involved not a mere failure of justice, but a positive wrong
to the party in whose favour it ought to have been. Now
the principle of unanimity was of comparatively recent in-
troduction. The common law went back to the reign of
Richard the First, and trial by jury went to the time of the
Anglo-Saxons; but in the reign of Henry the Third there
was a case in which a verdict found by 11 of the jury only
was received. There was a still more remarkable case in
which there were only 11 jurors, 10 of whom found a ver-
dict which was held to be good. In the reign of Edward
the First there were two modes of dealing with a refractory
jury. One was " compellere conconFain," by keeping the
jurors "sine cibo et potu" till they agreed. The other was
to add other persons to the jury so as to raise the number on
one side to 12 ; for at that time it was held with regard to
petit juries, as it was held with regard to grand juries, viz.,
that it was only necessary for 12 persons to concur in a ver-
dict. In later times the number of the jury was restricted
to 12; an arrangement for which the old writers gave some
rather singular reasons. They said that jurors were 12 be-
cause there had been 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 apostles ;
because there had been 12 stones in the high priest's breast-
plate; and because there were 12 judges; to which Lord
Coke added, "Because there were 12 Caesars." (Laughter )
If the concurrence of a majority was only required of their
lordships even in their judicial capacity, he did not see why
unanimity should not be expected of jurors. The evils that
arose from the present system were very serious. A single
wrong-headed or corrupt man in a jury was often able to
defeat justice. (Hear.) The manner in which juries were
still treated was very remarkable in an age which had abo-
lished press-gangs and so many other abuses. They sum-
moned jurymen from their avocations and kept them for days
in the court, to their serious pecuniary loss. Then if they
did not agree they were locked up without meat er drink, or
fire ; and they were forced to endure all this until at least
one of them was in peril of his life. The old law with
respect to military flogging was that the culprit must be
flogged until he fainted before the surgeon could interfere ;
and in like manner jurors must be starved until some one of
their 'Lumber wa9 in danger of his life, before the judge could •
relieve them. At assizes the strict law, according to Black-
stone, was, that a jury who could not agree must be put
put into a cart and carried about the circuit with the judge
until they found a verdict. (A laugh.) Another authority
said they ought not to be carried out of their own county,
but that they were to be shot into a ditch on the confines of
the county. New, if unanimity were required, they must
have compulsion ; they could not obtain unanimity without,
and if this bill were not passed, he hoped that the old laws
to compel unanimity would remain untouched. Recently a
case came before Lord Justice Turner and Lord Justice
Knight Bruce—it was not a question of law but a question
of fact. They heard all the evidence, and when they had
done so they were—not locked up without food and without
fire, but they each went home, had an excellent dinner, and
slept in a soft bed, and ten days afterwards, when they had
talked the matter over, they gave their verdict. If they had
differed and had been subject to the jury law, they would
have been locked up all night, taken round the circuit and
shot into a ditch. He believed that by the present system
the consciences of men were forced. It was a struggle whe-
ther nature or conscience should give way. They did not
know what passed in a jury room after the jury had retired,
as they did not permit inquiry into that subject; but they
had heard of juries tossing up as to which way the verdict
should be, and judges had been obliged again and again to
set aside verdicts which were evidently compromises be-
tween the different members of a jury. A cause came before
him lately in which the case for the plaintiff was that the
railway company had been guilty of negligence, and if neg-
ligence were proved he was entitled to some hundreds of
pounds as damages; but the jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages one farthing. He said to them that that was
a strange verdict, and that they must reconsider it. They
said they could not agree. He directed them to be locked
up but at length he was obliged to discharge them. He
believed that where it was a question of damages cases had
been known in which each juror had put down the amount
he thought right, and then they had averaged the amounts
so put down.
A. NOBLE LORD—That is the practice in Dublin.
(Laughter.)
Lord CAMPBELL proceeded—One great evil of the pre-
sent system was, that where juries could not agree, and
they were discharged, without coming to a verdict, all that
had taken place went for nothing. A trial might last for a
week, and after all the expense had been incurred the jury
may be discharged without having come to a verdict. On
one occasion there was a trial before him which was the
third trial of the same cause, and he was obliged to dis-
charge the jury without obtaining a verdict. He was afraid
he should have little assistance from his learned friends,
but he would quote some authorities which might perhaps
have some weight with their lordships. The first was Mr.
Hallam, the historian, who, discussing the system of trial
by jury, spoke of " the imposture of requiring unanimity."
The next authority he would name was Mr. Forsyth, who
asked " why should the perverseness or dishonesty of a
single juryman invalidate the verdict of the other eleven?
It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will much
longer tolerate such an anomaly." He now came to a very
important authority, that of the Common Law Commis-
sioners, who were appointed by the Crown in 1831. They
said, " The jury are not allowed to be discharged unless by
consent of the parties until theirunanimous verdict has been
returned. It is difficult to defend the justice of this practice.
It seems absurd that in cases of a doubtful and complicated
nature the plaintiff's success should depend on his being
able to persuade 12 persons that ono particular state of facts
is the true one." They went on to say, " The necessity of
delivering an unanimous verdict before they separate fre-
quently leads to an improper compromise between the
jurors. There is reason also to apprehendthat when any of.
them has been actuated by improper motives it has led to
corrupt verdicts." And they recommended that after a jury
had been 12 hours in deliberation the verdict of nine might
be accepted. In 1831 there was another commission, consist-
ing of judges and eminent counsel. They condemned unani-
mously the existing law, but they did not recommend the
measure which he now recommended to their lordships.
They proposed that the jury should have every comfort, and
at the end of a given time if they had not agreed to a ver-
dict they should be discharged. He brought in a bill by
which it was provided that the recommendations of the com-
mission of 1831 should be carried into effect. That bill passed
that house, but it was thrown out in the Commons, and yet
strange to say the Commons passed a measure ipsisszma
versa for Scotland. Previous to that time unanimity was
required in civil cases in Scotland, but that bill, which was
introduced by Mr. Dunlop, had worked well in that coun-
try, and he had no doubt would work well in this country.
(His lordship here read a letter from a Scotch judge, whose
name the reporter did not hear, in which he spoke of the
great satisfaction which Mr. unlop's measure had given
in Scotland) That bill provided that juries should be dis-
charged at the end of six hours, but there was a bill now in
the House of Commons which reduced the six hours to
three. The Faculty of Advocates were convened to consider
the matter, and they were unanimously in favour of the
proposed change. They expressed the opinion that Mr.
Dunlop's bill had worked advantageously, but they thought
that the period of time might be advantageously reduced.
He was told that all his learned brethren on the bench were
against this alteration. He should be deeply grieved if
that were so. Some of them certainly were of that opinion.
There was his brother Erie, than whom a more distin-
guished judge never sat in Westminster Hall, who ex-
pressed to him that opinion in conversation ; but it so hap-
pened that the following day, at nisi prius, Mr. Justice
Erle had to discharge two juries who had not given their
verdict, and that circumstance had somewhat changed his
views. (The noble lord then read a letter he had received
from a puisne judge, as the reporter understood, which was
to the effect that he had discharged a jury after they had been
locked up many hours, that the cause was tried at a former
assize by his learned colleague, and he had been under the
necessity of discharging his jury. In another, a special
jury case, the jury had also to be discharged.) His lordship
concluded by saying that by this bill no refreshment would
be allowed to the jury while they were deliberating, but if
at the end of six hours they had not agreed the verdict of
nine would be taken, and if nine were not agreed they
would then be discharged.
Lord LYNDHURST said the object of the bill was to
change one of the most important fundamental laws of the
kingdom—trial by jury. That law had existed in its pre-
sent form for nearly 500 years, and with one or two excep-
tions, and during the whole of that period, had been admired
and applauded by the most eminent lawyers who had ad-
vised the legislature and the tribunals of the country, A
very clear, distinct, and satisfactory ease, therefore, ought
to be made out to justify a change in that law; and it was
because no sufficiently satisfactory reason had been adduced
in favour of the proposed alteratiou that he felt it his duty
to oppose the second reading of the bill, (Hear, hear.) His
noble and learned friend had effected several changes in the
law, and had shown himself an advocate for an alteration of
the law of Parliament by advocating the ballot. The bill
dad apparently been introduced in consequence of a trial

resulting out of a railway accident by which ten persona
had been injured.
Lord CAMPBELL remarked that he had given notice of
his intention to introduce the bill before that trial took place.
Lord LYNDHURST—The question for the jury on that
occasion was one of extreme difficulty. One of the jurymen
differed from the rest, and his noble and learned friend was
. dissatisfied with that juryman's conduct, and said so in very
. strong terms. He understood that five juries had tried the
same question, and arrived at a final result. His noble and
learned friend had great influence with juries. He might
find some difficulty in cases where unanimity was the law;
but if the decision should be reduced to a majority, or to 9
against 3, juries would be almost directly under his influ-
ence and control. His noble and learned friend was fond of
introducing a little pleasantry, for the purpose of enlivening
the dulness which pervaded courts of justice. In the case
to which he (Lord Lyndhurst) was now referring the jury
were summoned into court in the morning, wretched, hag-
gard, pale, exhausted; and then it was that his noble and
learned friend enlivened them with a little history of the law
with respect to the unanimity of juries, stating that accord-
ing to ancient tradition at assizes, if a jury differed the
judge ordered them to be taken round the circuit in a cart
and thrown into the next ditch. (Laughter.) That state-
ment, no doubt, afforded the spectators in the court some
amusement ; but it was not a laughing matter to the broken
down jury. (Hear, hear.) Now there was no instance to
be`foundiin.the history of this country in which a jury had
been carried round in a cart, much less shot into a ditch.
(Laughter.) In the year 1368 a case was brought before
the Court of Common Pleas from the assizes, in which a
verdict had been given by 11 jurymen, one juryman dis-
senting. The person who reported that case appended a
note, from which it appeared that in the course of. the dis-
cussion the judges said that, as the jury had not ag-reed, the
judge should have taken them with him in a cart until they
had agreed. With regard to shooting the jury into a ditch,
he defied his noble and learned friend to quote any autho-
rity to justify that statement. The only authority with
respect to the other part of his noble and learned friend's
statement was the note to which he had just called the
attention of their lordships. Blackstone referred to that
very note. Any person would suppose from what his noble
and learned friend had said to the jury, that the judges
meant to inflict some indignity upon the jury. The ex-
pression was in French, and had been mistranslated by
his noble and learned friend and his predecessors. It meant
"on horseback, or if not on horseback, or when a person
was sick and could not travel on horseback, in a covered
waggon." (Laughter.) In such cases the judge was to
take the jurymen along with him in a covered waggon until
they came to an agreement.
Lord CAMPBELL—In Blackstone the translation is

Lord LYNDHURST—The word was C-A-R-R

(laughter)—which meant a waggon going on four wheels
and covered with a cloth. His noble and learned friend had
referred to a number of old cases. In the reign of Edward
the Third three of these cases were cited by counsel. And
what was the answer of the court ? Why it was this--that
all the cases had been disproved, and the courts had de-
cided directly the contrary from that time down to the pre-
sent without any exception. (Hear, hear.) He had made
some inquiries into the manner in which the law now ope-
rated, and had found that in 19 cases out of 20 the jury never
retired, but came to a conclusion at once. And when they
did retire, what followed ? Each juror lefethe box with some
impression on his mind, and stated his opinion, and after dis-
cussion a conclusion was arrived at. His noble and learned
friend considered such conclusion somewhat in the nature of
a compromise. But such a course of proceeding had not the
appearance, character, or the nature of a compromise. No
doubt in a certain class of cases something approaching a
compromise took place—such as cases of damage, where no
certain test existed. But that objection would apply equally
as strongly to a verdict by nine jurors as to a verdict by
twelve. No nine men could agree at once as to the precise
' amount of damage, so that no advantage would arise from a
reduction in the number of jurymen necessary to give a ver-
dict. (Hear, hear.) Now, what was the consequence in the
case of a jury disagreeing and being discharged ? Nothing
more than a new trial. And what proportion would such
cases bear to the number brought up from every circuit ?
Why they did not amount to more than two or three in the
course of a year. For a considerable period, as Lord Chief
Baron, he sat in London and Westminster, and went circuit ;
and during the whole of his experience in that capacity not
one instance had occurred of the discharge of a jury. (Hear,
hear.) He had presided in Wales, where the people were
not very apt to abandon any opinions they might have
formed—(a laugh)—but even in Wales he had known no in-
stance of a jury holding out and being discharged. He remem-
bered one remarkable instancewhichc,ame before the Court of
Common Pleas, where one juryman held out agaitist eleven.
That was a special jury case and one of great importance.
over which Mr. Justice Dallas presided. It was brought
before another jury, and the result was an unanimous ver-
diet in favour of the opinion entertained by the dissentient
juryman, and that verdict was never disturbed. If his noble
and learned friend's measure had been in operation at that
time, great injustice would have been done. He believed
that during the last ten years there had been no instance
either in the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, or the Ex-
chequer, of any jury ha' ing remained out the whole
night in consequence of disagreement ; nor had any such
case occurred during that period on any of the circuits,
with one exception, and that was in the principality of
Wales. (Hear, hear.) An hon. and learned gentleman,
Mr. Best, who had written a very excellent article on the
subject, stated that he had communicated with one of the
most eminent nisi prius lawyers for the purpose of ascer-
taining what proportion of juries had been discharged in
consequence of differences of opinion to the whole number
tried, and he said, " I believe that nineteen out of twenty
are decided before the parties in court; and of those that
leave the corn t I am persuaded that in not more than one
in five hundred cases aro juries discharged in consequence
of non-agreement. With reference to criminal trials the
proportion is about the same." His noble and learned
friend had mentioned two or three instances of new trials ;
but if the law should be so altered as to allow a majority
of 9t03 to secure a verdict applications for new trials
would be multiplied to an enormous extent. (Hear, hear.)
If the decision depended upon numbers there would be
an end to discussion among the jury, for should nine be of
one opinion and three of another the matter would be at
once decided. No verdict was satisfactory to the losing
party, but it would be infinitely more unsatisfactory if only
nine decided against him and three were in his favour. Such
a decision would promote litigation to an enormous extent.
(Hear, hear.) The English jury system was practised and
cherished in the United States, where the population was
now absut equal to that of this country. His noble and
learned Mend did not propose to extend this change to the
criminal law. And why ? What was the object of a jury ?
If a majority of 9 to 3 was sufficient for the civil, why not
for the criminal law ? Take the case of an indictment for
libel. To convict a man and impose a penalty, the verdict
must be unanimous. But if an action should be brought
in a civil court for the very same libel, the verdict of 9 to
3 would be sufficient. (Hear, hear.) His noble and
learned friend had referred to the opinion expressed by the
Common Law Commissioners in 1831, who came to the
conclusion embodied in the present bill.—" The necessity
for the unanimity of the jury carries with it one most
valuable advantage. In the event of any difference of opi-
nion, it ensures a discussion. Any one dissenting person
can compel the other eleven fully and calmly to recon-
sider their opinion." The principle of discussion was
therefore the great principle acknowledged by the com-
missioner. Since 1831 the subject had been much agi-
tated among the profession, many pamphlets had been
written respecting it, and another commission, appointed
in 1855, had come to a directly opposite conclusion from
that of 1831. (Hear, hear.) The last commission was
presided over by Chief Justice Jervis, and amongst the
commissioners were the Attorney-General (Sir Alexander
Cockburn), Mr. Baron Martin, and two other learned
judges. The commissioners in that report expressed their
opinion that a verdict pronounced by a majority only
. would not give satisfaction to the public, while the con-
sciousness that a portion of the jury were in his favour
would tend to increase the dissatisfaction felt by the de-
feated party. Every divided verdict would be urged on
the courts as a ground for a new trial, and would not un-
reasonably be entertained as such. But the strongest ar-
gument in favour of the present system, observed the com-
missioners, was that by requiring unanimity full and com-
plete discussion was ensured, the minority being naturally
led to resist a conclusion from which they differed, until
the prolonged discussion of the subject had led to altered
convictions, instead of yielding too readily to the views of
the majority, and so purchasing ease and relief from fur-
ther trouble, as would probably in many instances be
the case if, by the system now proposed, the whole re-
sponsibility of the verdict could be got rid of. After
a few concluding observations, the noble and learned lord,
who appeared much exhausted by the effort he had made to
speak so long, sat down amidst the cordial cheers of the
house.