Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1855-02-03

LAW REFORM IN ENGLAND-Trial by Jury is in
process of gradual extinction in England. Our own
jurisprudence and legal practice SO much deriv
ed from English sources las the natural consequence
Of our 81 ilarity of origin and anguages) that it is
well to be "posted up as to any organic or even
important changes which may be made across the
water in the principles and practice of the law.
Here we quote English precedents, authorities, ard
decisions. The names Of our great lawyers are as
well knosvn and as highlyrespected and reverenced
in Westminster Hall as in our own courts. The
authority of Kent and Of Story is admitted side by
side with that of Litteton and Coke, of Eldon and
Mansfield while in international law, the name Of
Sir William Scott lord Stow does not rank above
that ofOur Wheaton.
In truth, American jurisprudence has taken
the lead OF England in one very important respect:
we allude to the codifcaon of the law, which
has been accomplished in the State of New York,
and which, although it is not yet settled down into
the best working condition, and will probably re-
qulIe little adjustment before it attans any great
approximation to completeness, is generally conce-
ded 10 be vast Improvement upon the old shifting
and unstable system For the last fve-aud-twenty
years the same subject has occupied public atten-
ton in England both in Parliament, by Govern
ment commissioners, and Lord Brougham's Law
Amendment Society, and remains pretty nearly
unaccomplished as it ever was.
Trial by jury may be considered as "sicb man"
it has had several paraytc strokes. First came
succession of demonstrations in favor of aboshIng
all action of grand juries, and leaving the yes and
no of indictments to remain exclusively at the will
of responsible public prosecutor This was the re-
peatedy expressed opinion of successive grand ju-
rles at Middlesex, who have greater experience on
the subject than any other persons in En- gland. 1t
IS understood, indeed that at no remote day the
present grand jury system will be greatly altered,
if not wholly abolished.
Tho SacoD1 bI,yr Joo1t h., Al
Of the county courts in England, by which, plain
( f and defendant consenting, the decision could be
gwen by the lawyer who presided as jqdge'%ith-
out bringing the case at all before ildge> SoIx-
tensyey has this license been made hse of hat oG
of several millions OF cases which hav6:been dispo3
ed of in the country courts Of Englsnde scarcely
one in two thousand has gone before a jSry. The
public have preferred the decision of an, impartial
Judge, and have trusted the facts and law TO him.
The third blow is very recent an6 has scarcely
been struck as yet. In the last Parliamentary ses-
sior provision was introduced into statue for
simplifying and improving common law procedure
which allowed the Judge by mutual written con-
sents OF the lllgants to try questions OF fact with
out jury. This will probably effect great chan
ges. At present, in the course of equity proceed
ings issues to try questions Of fact frequently
sent down to the common law courts Heretofore |
such trials went before jury. In most cases, for
the future the judge alone will give the decision,
and it is expected mot unreasonable perhaps, that
sounder judgment will be given and more substan- /
tial Justice performed than the pubchave received /
or experienced when the jury system was in force.
There appears no present intention OF interfering !
with trial by jury in criminal cases. To deprive
man of the privilege of being tried by his peers
would probably incur more disapprobation than !
any reformer in England would like to incur.
Yet it IS understood that Lord Brougham has the |
strongest doubts as to the perfection or propriety
of the present jury system in England, and with
Lord Campbell and other eminent British lawyers,
desires that the verdict shall be given by the majority,
as in Scotland 1t appeaps extremely absurd to ex-
pect perfect unanimity upon one subject from any