Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1868-08-26
Trial by Jury.

Trial by jury-"that palladium of our
| liberties as it has been enthusiastically
called-is as present practised, the result
of gradual growth. Curlously enough,
the principles which governed 1T on its
/ first Introduction among the Norman Eng
lish were as different as possible from those
which are now considered essential to JUS
tice and impartiality. Chambers Journal,
in an article on "Juries," says that
:. Henry IL, introduced trial by jury into
/ England on civil process, and Henry Ill.
1 on criminal process, the jury being conpos-
/ ed of those who knew Of the matter In
/ dispute The injustice often wrought by
these tribunals was something startling.
/ 1t can easily be imagined what sort of
/ trial a man would have who was tried ac-
cording to the rumor or scandel of the
neighborhood, for, in the absence of abso-
lutte knowledge, it was held to be sufficient
that common fame reported this or that
of a man to warrant a Judgment upon him.
Even where the iury inolmAaa MO-" vrhe
had been eye-witnesses of the fact in ques-
ton, or who had special reason to know the
circumstances of a case, there was not any
sitting of their evidence by cross-cxamina-
ton, nor any obligation on the part of
the appellant. as the prosecutor or plain
tiff was called, to make the evidence of all
the witnesses agree upon the material
points. 1t seems about the twenty-third
year of Edward Ill, the custom began of
adjoining witnesses to the juries for the
purpose only of giving testimony, the
right to vote on what verdict should be
given being withheld; and, at some date
before the eleventh year of Henry ". it
became customary for the witnesses to be
detached wholly from the jury, aud give
their testimony at the bar of the court,
so that the Judges might exclude those
incompetent by law and direct the Jury as
to the weight due to the rest
.sProbaly, until the times of the Tudor
princes, jurymen were not molested in the
discharge of their functions they were
what they intended to be-the guardians
of right both in civil and criminal causes,
| 4 practice sprang up, however, in Henry
Wills reign which was extended into a
regular institution under Mary and Eliza
beth-a practice of calling jurors to per-
sonal account for their verdicts Some
times the judges fined them for giving ver-
diets contrary to what was expected but,
more frequently the Court of Star Cham
Der caused such jurors to be brought be-
fore it, when fine and Imprisonment were
awarded as the sentence upon men who
had returned answer upon oath concerning
the questions submitted to them One
of the most notorious cases in which the
Star Chamber thus interfered was the case
of the jury which acquitted Sir Nicholas
Throckmorton, in the second year of Queen
Mary. Sir Nicholas was charged with
high treason,in having participated in rails
ing Lady Jane Grey to the throne. His
defence having been conducted by himself,
with singular ability and eloquence, the
of the court. On delivering their verdict,
they were forthwith committed to prison,
and eight of them, when brought before the
Stat Chamber, attempting to Justify their
conduct, were fined, some of them thou
sand marks, others as much as two thou
sand pounds Sir Tn omas Smith, writing
in the time of Elizabeth says that more
often than not juries were only threatened
or dismissed by the Counsel with repri-
mand yet have seen in my time he
says, but not in the reign of the king now
Elizabeth, that an inquest, for pronounc-
ing one not guilty of treason contrary to
such evidence as was brought in, were not
only imprisoned for space, but large
fine set upon their heads, which they were
fain to pay; another inquest for acquitting
another, beside paying fine, were to open
ignominy and shame. Bnt these doings
were even then accounted of many for vio-
lent, nt,tyrannical, and contrary to the liberty
and custom of the realm of England
The last case In which fines were inflicted
upon juries happened in 1910, when the
Recorder of London, at the instance of the |
Attorney-General, who abused jury for
acquitting two Quakers of charge of sedi- |
tious speech-making, fined the jurors all
round Bushell, the foreman, refused to
pay ; and when the case ,came into the
Court of Common Pleas on a writ of ha-
beas corpus sued out by Bushell, who had
been committed for non-payment. Chief
Jnstice Vaughan, in an elaborate judgment,
decided, once and forever, that the Record
er's proceedings had been irregular, and
that the law of England did not allow of
juries being called into question for their
verdiets. OF course, juryman is liable
as witness is, and indeed as any one is.