The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1859-05-03
TRIAL BY JURY I'm ENGLAND.

We feel very much like giving three cheers for
the only American born lord in the House of Peers;
and because, when British born lords made an
onslaught on trial by jury, he, Lord Lyndhurst,
with fash of his youthful mental vigor manful-
ly stood up and resisted Lord Campbell who pro-
posed in civil cases to have ma jointly instead of
unanimity decide, when Lord Lyndhurst made a
capital speech in reply. The pretext for the fun
damental change is that juries sometimes disagree
and also compromise in questions of damages. In
nineteen cases out of twenty, Lord Lyndhurst said,
a jury agreed; and what is to be gained, in the
compromise point, by making nine give verdict
Must not they too compromise! "The cases."
grandly said Lord Lyndhurst, "are very rare in
which one or two persons hold out, and do not
agree with the rest Of the jury. And because
cases of this kind occasionally occur will you, for
that slight Inconvenience make alteration in the
fundamental law of the country and the great sys-
tenn of trial by jury? What is the consequence if
jury disagrees and is discharged? Nothing
more than ths-that there is new trial; and what
proportion do the new trials ordered on this &C
count bear to those that take place from other
reasons, even from the courts in London ? Two
or three year is the very utmost. l was former
ly one of the judges of common law court, the
Chief Baron Of the Exchequer. sat in London,
and went on circuit and during the whole time
| held the Office not instance occurred Of
a jury being discharged for want of unanimlty.-
/ have presided a judge in Wales; l do not
know if any noble lord is present connected with
that principality; but its people are not very apt
to abandon any principle they have once formed
Yet even in Wales not one instance occurred while
administered justice in that part of the world,
experience. O4aughter.) practced many years
at the bar, in the Court of Common Pleas, and in
that period recoect only one instance of it, but
that a remarkable instance; one juryman did
hold out against the other eleven; it a special
jury, and the question of great importance
The person who held out was merchant of emf
hence named Barclay. remember the whole case
if occurred yesterday. The jury held out the
whole night, and the next morning discharged.
The case came on for trial again before another
jury, and the result was unanimous verdict i'll
favor of the opinion entertained by Mr. Barclay,
and that verdict was never disturbed. Now, un-
der what my noble and learned friend contends
for, gross in Justice would have been done in this
case; the eleven would have carried the first YER
dict, and would have been verdict contrary to
law, and inconsistent with the facts During the
last ten years. with the exception of the that
is the foundation of this BILL there has been no in
stance in the Courts of Queens Bench, Common
Pleas, or Exchequcr, of any jury having remain
ed out al night in consequence of disagreement
And not only So but no during those ten years
has occurred on any of the circuits"
And so the venerable man went on in a way
worthy of Lord Camden when he was fighting
the general verdict battle Others said good
things; others indicated trial by jury because it
five hundred years old; others called upon the
House "to stand by the ancient way;" but Lord
Lyndhurst, with sort of American instinct, vim
Dictated the present mode on the ground of reason;
just one of the sovereigns of the country would
vndicate the great liberty safeguard. What did
it matter that the shallow and arrogant "I.ord
Kingsdown" declared how absurd it was 'that
twelve men, taken at haphazard from the COM
munity," who after could not comprehend ques-
ton, still should decide questions. The bill was
rejected, only seven voting for it.
All honor to Lord Lyndhurst!