It is not wonderful that ...
The Times, 1824-07-26T00:00:00

It is not wonderful that vazjous incidents which oc- cur from time to time in the course of trials by jury, should draw the attentigl of thinking people to the pro. priety of examining how far such circumstances, whetker of a ludicrous or melancholy natttre, can be referred to as necessary results of the manner in which English juries are constituted, nr of tl *1AitD by wrfctra ey-are le- gally bound. On the first of these points, ve have not fallen in with many persons disposed to cavil at the lawv of England. Than the theory of that portion of our law which prescribes the composition of juries, nothing, wet coneeive, can be more perfect. Nor, admitting that, per- haps in one case out of a thousand. the Sheriffn may,M n carlessness, or dulness, or caprice, or,worst of all, from pc. sonal bias towards one or other of two adverse parties (es- pecially if tlie Crown be one), return a vitiated or defec- tive panel, does it appear that, on the whole, the people of this countryeither are, or bave reason to be, much disa' satisfied in that respect with the degree of conformity which exists between the spirit of the law and the przc. tice of its officers. With the exception of some abuses, chiefly local, which have crept into the mode of appointing Special Jurymen, there is little then to find fault with as to the materials of which Juries are composed. Whatever controversy shows itself wvith regard to 4Jries in this part of the United Kingdom, has for its object the regulations established for their government after they have been sworn. Of these, -the first in importance is, undoubtedly, that which compels them to deliver a ulani, mous verdict. BLACKSTONE, we believe, Acknowledges that unanimity is an obligation peculiar to the English lawr, no trace of it having been discovered by the learned Judge in the institutionr of thbse countries whence it is presumed tG have originated. The Sotch, moreover, laugh outright (Scotch jokes being mostly at the expense of their neigh. boors) when we speak to theta of our EnglishbJu'yme4 being forced to agree, or starve. Yet, is the ridicule, 've would ask, well feunded? Is the matter so very clear? In frauin.g - tribunal of any description, or for. any D.. diety, we conceive that the most important cousideramt is, *by what tneans to ensitre the most sePHous atention on the part of the Judges to the merits of every cause. Let us im5zine, then, tie evidence and speeches of counsel closed, the Judge's charge de3ivered, awd the Jury leR to fulfil their Anal duty. 1. It is under a syswem of law which permits' a majorityg of jairors to decide. Then, if the question be a simple one, and the jury conscientiouls men (which latter fact we shaU in every instance take for granted),there is no lmore to be said about it; the majority see their way atl once, and bring in a verdict witbout retiring from the jury- box. But the case is full of difficulties, antI ought not to be decided inl a momet. WVhy, then, wve are inclined to believe, that whatever may be the first view of its merits-- whatever shade of colour may have been- thrown over it by the Counsel who last addressed the jury, or by the Judge hil-asulf, frorn-the tendency of his own mind-here, too, those of the jurors who are affected by last im- pressions, who satisfy themselves with superficial in- quiries, who kn6oiW that if they constitate the majority, they can finish the thing at- oflcc, without further fatigue or trouble, and go home-that the Jtidge thinks so and so, andi that to consider further would be but to per- plex themselves more ;-ve fear that in such a case the mnembers of this majority will not be slow to find each other out-that the aissentients will not be lister.ed to, but a verdict given upon a first impulse, and speedy injustice rendered. For which opinion is likely to be the best founded, that which is taken up at once, or that which is the fruit of a sifting and pains-taking intellect? The chance is obviously, in the above stated hypothesis, that the ma- jority were the impatient fools-that the dissenting mem- *bers were the rightly-judging jurytnen--that if the former had sny strong grounds to goupon, It was because they adopted the opinion of the Judge, vvho thus was permitted to *-.-.eicise alone the functions of the jury. Now we shallbriefly tupposbea case in which unaRimity is required from a jury. 'ib first vie4 'tgain, is that by which the major part of i reist Ag toh e governied; but instead of being suf- 't6bt ring in a verdict instanter, two or three stiff- nMciild brothco.s express a strong belief that the favourite inlpresslon is unjust. Theyfirce theirassociatestodeli- lh>te:a2 lie parts of the subject in all their bearings are investigated. The question is sure to be better uRderstood than at first: if the majority should convince the dissen- tients, all comes right as it wvould have done at first; if the prosclytis should be the other way, is it not an hundred to ond that a gross injustice has been prevented? IVe nut this as a single contingency out of a multitudte, in which a wvrong which would have been committedl by a majority, is averted by one or two power. ful nilnds, having the privilege of forcing the others to deliberate. For our persuasion is not to be removed, that in alnost every case it is the weak who hang together in majorities, and thAt when objections are startedl and de- lay insisted oR by " an obstiniatefellow" now and then, the obstinate fellow is the very man of the twelee moot quali- fied to form a shlrewvd decisioni, and to lead his brethren to the truth. If a majority were to resolve every question, the jUTy would seldom retire fromz the box; the verdic's would be those of the idle, tlic Impatient, and the shallow, who would be eontent to take up the bias of the Judge, and thus abandloR tlicir offices of -jurymnen. Uinnimiiy may impose privations upon the jovy, it may sound ab- surdly to supercilious foreigners; but it is an ef- fectual means of securing a strict investigation 'of the truth, and of augmenting the. average of sub;tantial justice. Again: we are not extravagant or superstitious in our worship of the law as it stands. It appears to us that the starving plan, extended as it is to whole nights and days, is a needless and monstrous folly. It is enough to engage the attention of the jury to the merits of the cause, not to kill them; for there are assAredly cases in which two men the most conscientious in the world may totally difFer in their judgment. TheTreedy, then, is thi.s-if, after four or six hours of seclusion, the jurors cannot agree, let the verdict be taken out of their hands by the Court; in criminal prosecutions, let the prisoaer bereleased ; and in actions, let the plaintiffwhose merits cannot discover them- selves to the minds of the jury in four or six hours of in- quiry, lose his cause annd seek a second trial.