The Glasgow Chronicle. — 1849-08-15 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

HOW JURIES IN ENGLAND ARE CONSTRAINED TO UNANIMITY.  A woman was tried for murder last Saturday at Shrewsbury. The evidence was conflicting. and at half-past seven o'clock the jury were shut up for the night. At half-past ten the judge received information that a juryman was taken ill. A medical man was sent for, who, after seeing the patient, stated that he was labouring under an ttack of cholic, to which he was constitutionally subject. If he had medicine, there would be a chance of his bring able to go on till six o'clock next morning without food. Upon this the following colloquy ensued : His lordship—lf he is in such a state that he cannot go on without food, I have no power to order it, but I can allow him to have medicine. Mr. Clements—Suppose I should order him a strong deeoction of beef tea? He has been fasting all day, and wants it much. His lordship—l do not want to interfere with your discretion as a medical man, but he cannot he allowed nutriment—which all may equally want—merely because he is weaker and less able to do without it. When I allow you to give him medicine, I do not want to restrict you as to the sort of medicine, but you must give nothing but what is bona fide medicine. Mr. Clements—The man is of such a habit that I think the best medicine I can give him is a glass of brandy. His Lordship—l will not control your discretion as to whether you give him stimulants or sedatives. You may give anything, which, in your opinion as a medical man, you call medicine; but you must not give him food. Mr. Clements —I will then undertake to keep him free from harm for seven hours, that is, till six o'clock to-morrow. The medicine was administered, and the patient relieved. By one o'clock on Sunday afternoon, at which time the jury had not been able to agree upon their verdict, the malady had returned, and the doctor having sworn that further confinement would endanger the sufferer's life, he and his fellows were thereupon discharged. We point attention to the above dialogue, in the hope that it may serve as an illustration for future dissertations on trial by jury. Here is a man, upon whose cool and deliberate judgment hangs the life of a fellow-creature. He is ill. Nature demands the support of' food, but the law refuses it. Why? Because his fellows want it as much as he, although he is "less able than they to do without it." We confess ourselves unable to seize the distinction. How can a man be said to be not more in wait of a thing than his neighbour, if he is less able to do without it? However, let that pass. Can nothing be done to relieve the patient? The doctor is consulted first, and then the judge. His Lordship shakes his head at the mention of a boson of beef tea, but listens favourably to the suggestion of a glass of brandy. But, it may reasonably 11 asked, what is the practical difference between artificially invigorating the system by stimulants, and sustaining it by wholesome nutriment? Provided you keep the man going, what signifies it whether the effect is produced by beef or brandy? Food is medicine, and medicine in the case supposed is administered to supply the place of food. What would the law say to a cigar, or a quid of tobacco? Either will serve at a pinch in lieu of a sandwich. Abstractly considered; if it be possible to form an abstract concepticn ; we do not know a greater absurdity, even in the English system of jurisprudence, than the practice of debarring jurymen from food and fire. The notion of eliciting from a man an unbiassed opinion by refusing him meat, drink, light, and warmth until be agrees with sombody else, can only be compared to that of extracting truth by the instrumentality of the rack, to which, indeed, it has a very as ar relationship.—Morning Chronicle.