We are not sorry that Gov...
The Times, 1824-06-21T00:00:00

vve are not sorry that (iovernment has undertaken the improvement of the special jury system: but at the same time we think tbat their preceedings in the matter should be viewed with a degree of jealousy. Mr. PEEL stated with truth, that a prejudice existed against special juries: but in reality it is the Constitution itself Avhich instils thispre- judice; for special juries are not allowed by the Constitu. tioII in cases of the greatest importance-in felonies and murders. The subject may therefore justly entertain a suspicion of those of whom the law entertains a suspicion, special jurymlen being persons precisely in that situation of life on whom the influence of the Crown may be supposed most likely to operate. They are placed high enough in society to be within the range of ministerial patronage; and we believe as a matter of fact, that there are very few, if any, special jurvmen, who may not be found, either in their owvn persons or in that of some one of their relatives, to be in the enjoyment, or expectation, or hope, of some place or office dependent on the will of the Sovereign; and we leave it to common sense to decide, whether men ought to be allowed to try a cause between two parties, one of which parties they have an evident interest in obliging, or a dread of offending. Whilst the commen juryman can have no- thing to expect in the discharge of his duty but the satis- fying his conscience that he desides rightly, his station places him at too great a distance from the Crown to sbare itS Pnon-rs: it therefore as rarelt occurs in his case, as it happens frequently in that of the special juryman, that he either enjoys or expects any thing fiom the Crown. iIr. PEEL, it will have been observed, stated, that "c no " persons in the country were more anxious to have the " system amended, than those gentlemen who attended in " the courts in the capacity of special jurors." This testi- mony is certainly creditable to the persons of whom it speaks, but does it not also discover a very singlarfact, to- tally at variance with the Constitution-namely, that there is a body of men, having an intetest, as it were, in the office of special juryship (if we may coin such a word in order to express a new idea), or to whom that office apper- tains as a matter of right or custom ? We know what is meaut by the Bench and the Bar; each of those terms com- prise a definite body of men, peculiarly educated, and car- rying peculiar privileges about with thenki; and to these, we suppose, we may now add, the Box. The Bench, the Bar, and the Box; meaning by the first the Judges, by the second the advocates, and by the last the special jurymen- not those only who are in court upon any individual cause (as by the Bar we do not mean the advocates only who plead upon that cause), but the whole body of special jury- men in or out of court. Now this, we say, is a totaUy new discovery, that there should be such an order of men. M1r. PEEL's Bill upon the empanelling of special juries is to stand over till the next session. This is proper, as the measure wiU appear by the above observations to be an im- portant one, and requiring therefore the utmost circum- spection. Wle are most anxious, not for the change, but for the perfecting of all our institutions; but we do hope, that Nvhile that of special jurymen underKoes a purifica- tion, which it may need, an occasion wvill not be taken to extend the range of its operations, but that that range may be rather circumscribed, in order to meet the increased in- fluence of the Crown. It seems particularly proper also, that the Sheriff shouldl be compelled to abolislh what inav not improperly be termed an oligarchy of special jurymen, by filling the jury-list from time to time wvith perzons fit to serve. We are informed that one-half of thte riames stand- ing on the present list are those of persons defunct.