An Essay on the Trial by Jury Part 8

"By a law of Edward the Elder, 'Every sheriff shall convene the people once a month, and do equal right to all, putting an end to controversies at times appointed.'"--_Ditto_, p. 86.

"A statute, emphatically termed the 'Grand a.s.size,' enabled the defendant, if he thought proper, to abide by the testimony of the twelve good and lawful knights, chosen by four others of the vicinage, _and whose oaths gave a final decision to the contested claim_."--_1 Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth_, 261.

"From the moment when the crown became accustomed to the 'Inquest,' a restraint was imposed upon every branch of the prerogative. _The king could never be informed of his rights, but through the medium of the people._ Every 'extent' by which he claimed the profits and advantages resulting from the casualties of tenure, every process by which he repressed the usurpations of the baronage, depended upon the 'good men and true' who were impanelled to 'pa.s.s' between the subject and the sovereign; and the thunder of the Exchequer at Westminster might be silenced by the honesty, the firmness, or the obstinacy, of one st.u.r.dy knight or yeoman in the distant shire.

Taxation was controlled in the same manner by the voice of those who were most liable to oppression. * * A jury was impanelled to adjudge the proportion due to the sovereign; and this course was not essentially varied, even after the right of granting aids to the crown was fully acknowledged to be vested in the parliament of the realm. The people taxed themselves; and the collection of the grants was checked and controlled, and, perhaps, in many instances evaded, by these virtual representatives of the community.

The principle of the jury was, therefore, not confined to its mere application as a mode of trying contested facts, whether in civil or criminal cases; and, both in its form and in its consequences, it had a very material influence upon the general const.i.tution of the realm.

* * The main-spring of the machinery of remedial justice existed in the franchise of the lower and lowest orders of the political hierarchy. Without the suffrage of the yeoman, the burgess, and the churl, the sovereign could not exercise the most important and most essential function of royalty; from them he received the power of life and death; he could not wield the sword of justice until the humblest of his subjects placed the weapon in his hand."--_1 Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Const.i.tution_, 274-7.

c.o.ke says, "The court of the county is no court of record,[52] _and the suitors are the judges thereof_."--_4 Inst._, 266.

Also, "The court of the Hundred is no court of record, _and the suitors be thereof judges_."--_4 Inst._, 267.

Also, "The court-baron is a court incident to every manor, and is not of record, _and the suitors be thereof judges_."--_4 Inst._, 268.

Also, "The court of ancient demesne is in the nature of a court-baron, _wherein the suitors are judges_, and is no court of record."--_4 Inst._, 269.

Millar says, "Some authors have thought that jurymen were originally _compurgators_, called by a defendant to swear that they believed him innocent of the facts with which he was charged.... But ... compurgators were merely witnesses; _jurymen were, in reality, judges_. The former were called to confirm the oath of the party by swearing, according to their belief, that he had told the truth, (in his oath of purgation;) _the latter were appointed to try, by witnesses, and by all other means of proof, whether he was innocent or guilty_.... Juries were accustomed to ascertain the truth of facts, by the defendant's oath of purgation, together with that of his compurgators.... Both of them (jurymen and compurgators) were obliged to swear that they would _tell the truth_....

According to the simple idea of our forefathers, guilt or innocence was regarded as a mere matter of fact; and it was thought that no man, who knew the real circ.u.mstances of a case, could be at a loss to determine whether the culprit ought to be condemned or acquitted."--_1 Millar's Hist. View of Eng. Gov._, ch. 12, p. 332-4.

Also, "The same form of procedure, which took place in the administration of justice among the va.s.sals of a barony, was gradually extended to the courts held in the _trading towns_."--_Same_, p. 335.

Also, "The same regulations, concerning the distribution of justice by the intervention of juries, ... _were introduced into the baron courts of the king_, as into those of the n.o.bility, or such of his subjects as retained their allodial property."--_Same_, p. 337.

Also. "This tribunal" (the _aula regis_, or king's court, afterwards divided into the courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer) "was properly the ordinary baron-court of the king; and, being in the same circ.u.mstances with the baron-courts of the n.o.bility, it was under the same necessity of trying causes by the intervention of a jury."--_Same_, vol. 2, p. 292.

Speaking of the times of Edward the First, (1272 to 1307,) Millar says:

"What is called the petty jury was therefore introduced into these tribunals, (the King's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the _Exchequer_,) as well as into their auxiliary courts employed to distribute justice in the circuits; and was thus rendered essentially necessary in determining causes of every sort, whether civil, criminal, or _fiscal_."--_Same_, vol. 2, p. 293-4.

Also, "That this form of trial (by jury) obtained universally in all the feudal governments, as well as in that of England, there can be no reason to doubt. In France, in Germany, and in other European countries, where we have any accounts of the const.i.tution and procedure of the feudal courts, it appears that lawsuits of every sort concerning the freemen or va.s.sals of a barony, were determined by the _pares curiae_ (peers of the court;) _and that the judge took little more upon him than to regulate the method of proceeding, or to declare the verdict of the jury_."--_Same_, vol. 1, ch. 12, p. 329.

Also, "Among the Gothic nations of modern Europe, the custom of deciding lawsuits by a jury seems to have prevailed universally; first in the allodial courts of the county, or of the hundred, and afterwards in the baron-courts of every feudal superior."--_Same_, vol. 2, p. 296.

Palgrave says that in Germany "The Graff (gerefa, sheriff) placed himself in the seat of judgment, and gave the charge to the a.s.sembled free Echevins, warning them to p.r.o.nounce judgment according to right and justice."--2 _Palgrave_, 147.

Also, that, in Germany, "The Echevins were composed of the villanage, somewhat obscured in their functions by the learning of the grave civilian who was a.s.sociated to them, and somewhat limited by the encroachments of modern feudality; _but they were still substantially the judges of the court_."--_Same_, 148.

Palgrave also says, "Scotland, in like manner, had the laws of Burlaw, or Birlaw, which were made and determined by the neighbors, elected by common consent, in the Burlaw or Birlaw courts, wherein knowledge was taken of complaints between neighbor and neighbor, _which men, so chosen, were judges and arbitrators_, and called Birlaw men."--1 _Palgrave's Rise_, &c., p. 80.

But, in order to understand the common law trial by jury, as it existed prior to Magna Carta, and as it was guaranteed by that instrument, it is perhaps indispensable to understand more fully the nature of the courts in which juries sat, and the extent of the powers exercised by juries in those courts. I therefore give in a note extended extracts, on these points, from Stuart on the Const.i.tution of England, and from Blackstone's Commentaries.[53]

That all these courts were mere _courts of conscience, in which the juries were sole judges, administering justice according to their own ideas of it_, is not only shown by the extracts already given, but is explicitly acknowledged in the following one, in which the _modern "courts of conscience"_ are compared with the _ancient hundred and county courts_, and the preference given to the latter, on the ground that the duties of the jurors in the one case, and of the commissioners in the other, are the same, and that the consciences of a jury are a safer and purer tribunal than the consciences of individuals specially appointed, and holding permanent offices.

"But there is one species of courts const.i.tuted by act of Parliament, in the city of London, and other trading and populous districts, which, in their proceedings, so vary from the course of the common law, that they deserve a more particular consideration. I mean the court of requests, _or courts of conscience_, for the recovery of small debts. The first of these was established in London so early as the reign of Henry VIII., by an act of their common council; which, however, was certainly insufficient for that purpose, and illegal, till confirmed by statute 3 Jac. I., ch. 15, which has since been explained and amended by statute 14 Geo. II., ch. 10. The const.i.tution is this: two aldermen and four commoners sit twice a week to hear all causes of debt not exceeding the value of forty shillings; which they examine in a summary way, by the oath of the parties or other witnesses, _and make such order therein as is consonant to equity and good conscience_.* * Divers trading towns and other districts have obtained acts of Parliament, for establishing in them _courts of conscience_ upon nearly the same plan as that in the city of London.

"The anxious desire that has been shown to obtain these several acts, proves clearly that the nation, in general, is truly sensible of the great inconvenience arising from the disuse of the ancient county and hundred courts, wherein causes of this small value were always formerly decided with very little trouble and expense to the parties.

But it is to be feared that the general remedy, which of late hath been princ.i.p.ally applied to this inconvenience, (the erecting these new jurisdictions,) may itself be attended in time with very ill consequences; as the method of proceeding therein is entirely in derogation of the common law; and their large discretionary powers create a petty tyranny in a set of standing commissioners; and as the disuse of the trial by jury may tend to estrange the minds of the people from that valuable prerogative of Englishmen, which has already been more than sufficiently excluded in many instances. _How much rather is it to be wished that the proceedings in the county and hundred courts could be again revived_, without burdening the freeholders with too frequent and tedious attendances; and at the same time removing the delays that have insensibly crept into their proceedings, and the power that either party has of transferring at pleasure their suits to the courts at Westminster! _And we may, with satisfaction, observe, that this experiment has been actually tried, and has succeeded in the populous county of Middles.e.x_, which might serve as an example for others. For by statute 23 Geo. II., ch. 33, it is enacted:

1. That a special county court shall be held at least once in a month, in every hundred of the county of Middles.e.x, _by the county clerk_.

2. _That twelve freeholders of that hundred, qualified to serve on juries, and struck by the sheriff, shall be summoned to appear at such court by rotation_; so as none shall be summoned oftener than once a year.

3. That in all causes not exceeding the value of forty shillings, _the county clerk and twelve suitors (jurors) shall proceed in a summary way_, examining the parties and witnesses on oath, without the formal process anciently used; _and shall make such order therein as they shall judge agreeable to conscience_."--_3 Blackstone_, 81-83.

What are these but courts of conscience? And yet Blackstone tells us they are a _revival of the ancient hundred and county courts_. And what does this fact prove, but that the ancient common law courts, in which juries sat, were mere courts of conscience?

It is perfectly evident that in all these courts the jurors were the judges, and determined all questions of law for themselves; because the only alternative to that supposition is, _that the jurors took their law from sheriffs, bailiffs, and stewards_, of which there is not the least evidence in history, nor the least probability in reason. It is evident, also, that they judged independently of the laws of the king, for the reasons before given, viz., that the authority of the king was held in very little esteem; and, secondly, that the laws of the king (not being printed, and the people being unable to read them if they had been printed) must have been in a great measure unknown to them, and could have been received by them only on the authority of the sheriff, bailiff, or steward. If laws were to be received by them on the authority of these officers, the latter would have imposed such laws upon the people as they pleased.

These courts, that have now been described, were continued in full power long after Magna Carta, no alteration being made in them by that instrument, _nor in the mode of administering justice in them_.

There is no evidence whatever, so far as I am aware, that the juries had any _less_ power in the courts held by the king's justices, than in those held by sheriffs, bailiffs, and stewards; and there is no probability whatever that they had. All the difference between the former courts and the latter undoubtedly was, that, in the former, the juries had the benefit of the advice and a.s.sistance of the justices, which would, of course, be considered valuable in difficult cases, on account of the justices being regarded as more learned, not only in the laws of the king, but also in the common law, or "law of the land."

The conclusion, therefore, I think, inevitably must be, that neither the laws of the king, nor the instructions of his justices, had any authority over jurors beyond what the latter saw fit to accord to them.

And this view is confirmed by this remark of Hallam, the truth of which all will acknowledge:

"The rules of legal decision, among a rude people, are always very simple; not serving much to guide, far less to control the feelings of natural equity."--_2 Middle Ages_, ch. 8, part 2, p. 465.

It is evident that it was in this way, _by the free and concurrent judgments of juries, approving and enforcing certain laws and rules of conduct, corresponding to their notions of right and justice_, that the laws and customs, which, for the most part, made up the _common law_, and were called, at that day, "_the good laws, and good customs_," and "_the law of the land_," were established. How otherwise could they ever have become established, as Blackstone says they were, "_by long and immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom_,"[54] when, as the Mirror says, "_justice was so done, that every one so judged his neighbor, by such judgment as a man could not elsewhere receive in the like cases, until such times as the customs of the realm were put in writing and certainly published_?"

The fact that, in that dark age, so many of the principles of natural equity, as those then embraced in the _Common Law_, should have been so uniformly recognized and enforced by juries, as to have become established by general consent as "_the law of the land_;" and the further fact that this "law of the land" was held so sacred that even the king could not lawfully infringe or alter it, but was required to swear to maintain it, are beautiful and impressive ill.u.s.trations of the truth that men's minds, even in the comparative infancy of other knowledge, have clear and coincident ideas of the elementary principles, and the paramount obligation, of justice. The same facts also prove that the common mind, and the general, or, perhaps, rather, the universal conscience, as developed in the untrammelled judgments of juries, may be safely relied upon for the preservation of individual rights in civil society; and that there is no necessity or excuse for that deluge of arbitrary legislation, with which the present age is overwhelmed, under the pretext that unless laws be _made_, the law will not be known; a pretext, by the way, almost universally used for overturning, instead of establishing, the principles of justice.

SECTION III.

_The Oaths of Jurors._

The oaths that have been administered to jurors, in England, and which are their _legal_ guide to their duty, _all_ (so far as I have ascertained them) corroborate the idea that the jurors are to try all cases on their intrinsic merits, independently of any laws that they deem unjust or oppressive. It is probable that an oath was never administered to a jury in England, either in a civil or criminal case, to try it _according to law_.

The earliest oath that I have found prescribed by law to be administered to jurors is in the laws of Ethelred, (about the year 1015,) which require that the jurors "_shall swear, with their hands upon a holy thing, that they will condemn no man that is innocent, nor acquit any that is guilty_."--_4 Blackstone_, 302. _2 Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, 155. Wilkins' Laws of the Anglo-Saxons_, 117. _Spelman's Glossary_, word _Jurata_.

Blackstone a.s.sumes that this was the oath of the _grand_ jury (_4 Blackstone_, 302); but there was but one jury at the time this oath was ordained. The inst.i.tution of two juries, grand and pet.i.t, took place after the Norman Conquest.

Hume, speaking of the administration of justice in the time of Alfred, says that, in every hundred,

"Twelve freeholders were chosen, who, having sworn, together with the hundreder, or presiding magistrate of that division, _to administer impartial justice_, proceeded to the examination of that cause which was submitted to their jurisdiction."--_Hume_, ch. 2.

By a law of Henry II., in 1164, it was directed that the sheriff "_faciet jurare duodecim legales homines de vicineto seu de villa, quod inde veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabunt_," (shall make twelve legal men from the neighborhood _to swear that they will make known the truth according to their conscience_.)--_Crabbe's History of the English Law_, 119. _1 Reeves_, 87. _Wilkins_, 321-323.

Glanville, who wrote within the half century previous to Magna Carta, says:

"Each of the knights summoned for this purpose (as jurors) ought to swear that he will neither utter that which is false, nor knowingly conceal the truth."--_Beames' Glanville_, 65.

Reeve calls the trial by jury "_the trial by twelve men sworn to speak the truth_."--_1 Reeve's History of the English Law_, 87.

Henry says that the jurors "took a solemn oath, that they would faithfully discharge the duties of their office, and not suffer an innocent man to be condemned, nor any guilty person to be acquitted."--_3 Henry's Hist. of Great Britain_, 346.