Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1873-07-10

alter one another. and examining little.
have attributed to this rsonarch the iussi.
tuition ofjarics. an institution which Ger.
taihly never did rrevail smong the Ssxeas.
Later on in history We find the revival
OF the jury system attributed to King Hen.
~ IL. in the twelfth century. Ba, the
! researches al q German scholar. DR.. Helm
rich Drummer of Vienna. confirm the opin-
ion that Henry he III. who was Norman,
and descendant Of William the Conaueror
IT he ''revived" the Institution of the iury.
May but have revived the work of his
Norman predecessors on the English
/ throne
To DIR. Drummer the credit apparently
belongs of furnishing the original au,heri.
ties for his statements. and giving a his
tory in detail. The results are, brirfy.
A. follows: During the existence of the
Merovingian dynasty on the continent o,
Europe. the German or Gothic tribunals
DOT juries in the modern scnse-were
presided over BY officers of royal appoint
menf, and the examination of the mem.
bers of the tribunal, as witnesses, was in
troduced. In Normandy the process re-
ceived still further development. The
number OF witnesses was fixed at twelve
sworn men. a majority Of whom decided
the question at issue. It was in this
shape a)hat the institution was introduced
into Eng land by the Norf,an King. Hen
~ H. Gradually the jury of,wclve neigh.
bors. witnesses. or cognizant Of the gencr-
al facts. were allowed to summon evidence
from witnesses outside of their number.
Thus they were both witnesses and Judges
In 1850 statute was passed By Parlia-
mcnt separating the witnesses from the
jury, whose function it now became to
make up verdict from the testimony laid
before them. Up TO the beginning of the
present century nearly fifty acts of Par
Lament in reference to jurics were passed.
The subject has received the molding of
legislation since. in this country as well
as in England. and prccedents and Judi
cial decisions have added their influence
to put tho institution in its present form,
under which witness upon jury would
be fatal to It's verdict.
The original of the German and proba-
bly, Of the Anglo-Saxon process of trial,
was by the "hundred' or the representa-
tives of the 'bundred' families Of the
vicinage. They were judges. rather than
jurors. Their province was 10 afix the
penalty. usually by custom. tradition or
unwri':cn law. Sometimes. no doubt.
the personal feeling or public opinion"
ofthe court supplied the want of law or
precedent. in a word. the German trib-
unal seems TO have been recognized and
therefore legal sor, of Lynch law" as is
now termed, or sometimes like an .ostra-
cism." as the Athcnians practiccd it.
The parties to the suit. or the criminals
arragned. established the fac, Of guilt or
purgcl themselves OF the charge hy vari.
Gus forms of ordeal or trial by combat
The name jury. from the French jurc,
sworn. would seem to mark the Norman
origin Of the institution. OF course. this
is no: conclusive. IS the Norman conquer
ors would have named English institutions.
I ct many Saxon applications, especially
OF popular things and customs, have sur.
vived the Norman conquest. The his
torian Hume, usually careful in examiG-
ing authorities. appears to come, upon
this theme. under Burkc's rcbukc. quoted
above. "ccpying after one another. and
examining little" Hume says: "Ali ad
vances toward reason aud good sense are
slow and gradual Henry, though SEN
sib!c of the great absurdity of trial by duel
or battle. did not venture to abolish it:
he only admitted either Of the parties to
challenge a trial by an assizc. or Jury of !
twelve freeholdcrs. This latter method
Of trial seems 20 have been very ancient
in England, and was fixed by the laws of
King Alfred; but the barbarous and yio-
lent genius of the age had of late given
more credit to the trial by battle. which
had become the general method Of decid-
ing al! important controversies"
If Alfred did anything in relation to
the Jury" Ga name by the way. which
hardly applies TO tie early German and
Saxon tribunaD he did rot take away the |
ordeal or trial by combat. rather than BY !
evidence. which was an essential part OF !
the proceedings. Ii seems most reason
able to infer that Henry II authorized an
appeal from the Saxon custom, with its /
ordeal" to the Norman proceeding by |,
evidence. The subject. SO far as popular
sources of information are considered, is
involved in great obscurity. Bat whatever
Else may be disputed. it is certain that the
airy of to-day is very different from any,
thing which Alfred founded. and far ad-
saneed from the jury Of Henry IL.