Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1859-04-29
Trial by Jury in 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 onslaught
trial by jury, he Lord Lyndhurst with flash of his
youthful mental vigor manully stood Rp and resisted
Lord Campbell proposed in civil cases to have ma ori
ty instead of unanimity decide when Lord Lyndhurst
made capital speech in reply. The pretext for the
fundamental change is that ures sometimes disagree
and also compromise in questions of damages. In nine
teen cases ont Of twenty, Lord Lyndhurst said, jury
agrees and what is to be gained, in the compromise
point, by making nine give verdict? Must not they
too compromise? {" The cases. grandIy 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 be-
cause cases Of this kind occasionally will you, for
that slight inconvenience, make alteration in the fun
damental law Of the country and the great system of
trial by jury? What is the consequence if jury dis
agrees and is discharged? Nothing more than this
that there is a new trial; and what proportion do
the trials ordered this account bear to those
that take place from other reasons, even from the
courts in London? Two or three a year is the very
utmost. | was formerly one of the judges of a com
mon 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 ever occur
red of jury being discharged for want of unanmity.-
| have presided Judge in Wales do not know if
any noble lord IS present connected with that prncpa-
ty; but its people are not very apt TO abandon any
opinion they have once formed Yet even In Wales not
part of the world of juryman holding out. That is
pretty good experience. (laughter) practscd many
years at tie bar in the Court of COmm Pleas and in
that period recoect only instance oft but that
remarkable instance one juryman did hold out against
the other eleven it was special jury and the question
was OF great importance. The person who held out
was merchant of emnence named Barclay. | remember
the whole if it occurred yesterday. The jury held
out the whole night, and next morning discharged
The case came on for trial again before another jury
ard the result unanimous verdict IN favor OF the
opinion entertained by Mr.. Barclay, and that verdict
was never disturbed. Now under what my noble and
learned friend contends for, gross injustice would have
been done in this the eleven would have carried
the first verdict and it would have been verdict con
trary 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 instance
| the Courts of Queens Bench, Common Pleas, Elk
chequer of any jury having remained out all mig III
consequence of disagreement And not only so, but nc
case during those ten years has occurred any of the
circuits
| And so the venerable man went on in a way worthy
OF Lord Camden when he fighting the general YER
diet battle. Others said good things others vindcateC
trial by Jury because it was five hundred years old 9th
ers called upon the House to stand by the ancient
ways - but Lord Lyndhurts, with sort of American
instinct, vndicated the present mode on the ground
reason Just as one of the sOveregns OF the country
would vndicate the great liberty safeguard What die
it matter that the shallow and arrogant Lord Kings
down declared how absurd it was that twelve men
| taken at haphazard from the community" who afte
could not properly comprehend question, still shout
decide questions. The bill was rejected only seven vo
| ting for it.
All honor to Lord Lyndhurst!