J U RIES .
I F there is any question that ought to be ripe for a settlement, it is one which has been before three Select Committees in successive sessions, and the Bill relating to which has gone up to the House of Lords. Yet, with all this preparation and discussion, the Juries' Bill is a very fragmentary measure, and even its promoters seem to doubt the expediency of passing it this Session. The evils with which it ought to grapple have been more than once stated in these columns. Assuming that the Jury system is to some extent a necessity, we have already shown that the lists are carelessly made, that persons are summoned in an arbitrary manner, that the remuneration to common jurors is absurdly insufficient, that the line drawn between common and special jurors is uncertain, and that the whole machine works badly. The further facts before us prove that, in one case at least, a gentleman and his butler were summoned to serve on the same grand jury ; and that while merchants in the City, who were described as " gentlemen " on the jury list, ranked with common jurors, shopkeepers in Whitechapel were put upon special juries. The way in which service on juries is habitually evaded by some who make a corrupt bargain is a greater evil. In the City, there was at one time a man who carried on a regular business of concocting excuses, and who earned about £500 a year by swearing that persons summoned on juries were out of England. Such facts as these testify to the reluctance of many men to give up their time to the public, but this reluctance is easily explained when we consider the present system. The jurymen who are summoned to our Courts are kept waiting for days, in a stifling atmosphere, without a proper place to sit down, without any means of occupation, without a prospect of being released. They are liable to be called upon at any moment, and to be fined if they are not present ; but they may be in court during the whole sittings, and never once be sent into the box. For their services, should their services be needed, they are paid a guinea a cause, if they are special jurymen ; eightpenc,e or a shilling a cause, if they are common jurymen. However long a case may last, the remuneration is just the same, whether the jury sit for twenty-one days, as in the case of " Saurin v. Starr," or for ten minutes, as in many cases which are settled during the opening. Besides, if a juror remains in court without having to go into the box he receives nothing, and the same liberal scale is allowed in criminal trials. The result is that a juryman is forced to be absent from his business for as many days as chance may require, he is hustled about in a crowded court and may have his pockets picked, and at the best he receives a very small re- muneration. All that the Juries' Bill proposes is to augment this payment, to reduce the number of jurors summoned, to give longer intervals between the times of service, to insure greater care in the making of the lists, and to extend the qualification of special jurymen. The barbarous custom of refusing juries "meat, drink, and fire" while they are de- liberating is also to be abolished, and there are one or two other changes of comparatively less importance. So far the Bill in itself is sensible, and it is an improvement on the old system. But it leaves a great many points untouched, it merely patches up certain defects and some of those imper- fectly, while it is wholly wanting in any clear and consistent principle. It may be a matter of importance to special jurors in Middlesex that they will not be liable to be summoned more than once a year, and it will be some satisfaction to them to think that their neighbours will no longer gain an exemp- tion by an excess of modesty. Common jurors who are paid ten shillings a day will be more ready to attend than when they earned eightpenee or a shilling, and thus, no doubt, the work will be better done and more equally distributed. Yet there seems to be uo provision for payment in criminal cases ; there is no attempt to deal with the question of unanimity, or to touch the sanctity of the number twelve ; the old exemp- tions are maintained without discussion, and sometimes on no very clear grounds ; and many points which were discussed before the Select Committees, and included in one of the reports, find no echo in the Bill.
We need hardly discuss the questions whether trial by jury ought to continue, and whether service on juries should be required of all persons alike. There are many matters which can only be decided by a tribunal representing public opinion. In business affairs, in disputes about facts, the verdict of a certain number of practical men carries greater weight than would attach to the finding of a more scientific tribunal. There are stories which will impose on one or two men, but will be detected by a greater number. We do not say that our Judges are unfit for the task of pronouncing upon ques- tions of fact, but they would probably shrink from the respon- sibility. It is with reluctance that they have undertaken the work of hearing Election Petitions, though they have done that work admirably, and it is clear that no other tribunal was possible. But if facts in general are to be withdrawn from a jury, and especially if criminal cases are to be treated in this way, neither Judges nor public will be con- tented. It is interesting to note what Sir William Erle, late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, says on the subject. "The experience I have had in twenty-two years has left a feeling of most sincere respect for the great mass of our jurymen, and I believe that serving on a jury is salutary in the way of education for many men whose minds come in collision with more powerful intellects, communing upon matters where nothing but a sense of duty and a desire to ascertain the truth are prevailing." He speaks, too, of one man being generally the "eye of the jury," and of the way in which advocates would address themselves to this man, feeling sure that if they only persuaded him he would persuade the other eleven. Yet this praise of juries is to be taken with some abatement. Though public opinion is a good guide in practical matters, it is not a good guide when it is pre- judiced. Any question rising out of a political contest, any question which has excited party feeling in a county, is unfit for the decision of a jury. It was for this reason that election petitions were properly removed from the committee- rooms of the House of Commons, and still more rightly trans- ferred to a single judge. We have heard men say that if they were summoned on a jury which Was to try a certain case of bribery, nothing on earth should induce them to return a verdict of guilty. Here, then, trial by jury fails, but what could be substituted ? With our past experience we must retain it as a safeguard in cases involving life and liberty. The example of Parliamentary Committees, and of benches of magistrates, shows the value of unanimity. If it were possible for nine jurors out of the twelve to force a verdict—unless, as the Common-Law Commissioners suggested, a certain time had to elapse before a vote could be taken— there would be an end to deliberation. Those who have seen a Court of Quarter Sessions pronounce upon an affiliation appeal by a majority of one, the appellant being a clergyman to whom such a decision is ruin, will pause before they allow juries the same privilege. In civil cases the two sides may consent to take the verdict of the majority, and that rule might possibly be a little extended. If the vote could only be taken after twelve hours' deliberation, and if then it must be the vote of nine out of twelve, this might be better than a new trial. But it is a question if this would not favour the system of com- promise which is fatal to the sincerity of verdicts. It is only the other day that a jury found a girl guilty, but recommended her to mercy on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. We do not like to say in plain words what was the meaning of this recommendation.
How far it might be possible to allow those persons whose tune is most valuable to them to purchase exemption from service is a very delicate question. At present, members of the learned professions and some others are exempt on this ground, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Otherwise serving on juries would become a profession, and when once that stage was reached, independence of thought and know- ledge of business, all the qualities, in fact, which we wish to secure, would cease to be represented. While we admit that the present system is a grievance, we think redress may be had by a change in its working, rather than by relaxing its principle. The number of persons serving on juries might be reduced. Sir William Erle says that he has found seven as good as twelve, and that the County-Court Judges are content with five. Then the number of cases tried by juries might be greatly diminished. The Jury system might be retained for such cases as involved serious disputes of fact, just as in the Divorce Court, in the Court of Chancery, and in the County Courts trials may be conducted by that method. But the rarity of trials by jury in these Courts shows that we have too much of the system at Nisi Prins. Last Term there were 142 causes set down for hearing in the Divorce Court, of which 13 were marked for special juries, 30 for common juries, and 99 to be heard without juries. In the County Court at Todmorden we are told that there have not been more than 10 or 12 cases tried by jury in 10 or 12 years. With such facts as these, it is clear that there can be no neces- sity for bringing every common-law action before a jury. If it rested with the suitors to claim a jury, and with the Court to decide whether that claim was reasonable and proper, there would no longer be such a tax on those liable to serve as there is at present, and the hardships would be very much lessened. A fair scale of payment, decent accommo- dation in the Courts, a feeling that suitors are not selfishly consulting their own advantage, but really want the help of a jury, would go far towards remedying the existing evils. So long as we have twelve bewildered men in a box trying vainly to make any sense out of a purely legal discus- sion between judge and counsel, and at last directed by the judge to return a verdict which is to be manipulated by the Court above, we can understand some people being deaf to the sound of thair own names. Yet we are sure that if juries were only asked to do what is reasonable, they would attend with alacrity. If their duty to their country could be performed by three days' service once in every five or six years, which seems on the whole evidence to be all that is really necessary, few men would prefer to pay the fine of £10, and surreptitious guineas would be at a discount.
Previous page
