Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/186

160 l6o HARVARD LAW REVIEW. ond jury was opposed to that of the first, the original twelve jurors were arrested and imprisoned ; their personal chattels were forfeited to the King, and they became for the future infamous. After the jury became distinct from witnesses, attaint gradually fell into dis- use. Besides the legal method of attaint, there was also another and illegal method of punishing a jury for a false verdict, frequently employed by the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns for political purposes. This was by fine and imprisonment by the Court of the Star Cham- ber. After the abolition of the Star Chamber, the Crown made use of the judges to intimidate juries. At length the immunity of juries was finally established in 1670 by the celebrated decision of Chief Justice Vaughan in BushelVs Case. The institution of trial by jury has thus been traced from the period of its first introduction into England, when the jury acted as mere recognitors, up to the time when they finally became separated from the witnesses, and gave their verdict, not from their own pre- vious knowledge of the disputed facts, but from a consideration of the evidence which was brought before them. An institution Hke the jury, existing for ages amongst a people, cannot but influence the national character. The very essence of trial by jury is its principle of fairness. The right of being tried by his equals, that is, his fellow citizens, taken indiscriminately from the mass, who feel neither malice nor favor, but simply decide according to what in their conscience they believe to be the truth, gives every man a conviction that he will be dealt with impartially, and inspires him with the wish to mete out to others the same measure of equity that is dealt to himself. With regard to trial by jury in civil cases, we cannot speak in such high commendation, for it has many and grave disadvantages which prove that it is wholly unsuitable for the settling of disputes in courts of law at the present day. Great changes are required in that institution in order to adapt it to a time which boasts of having reached the highest civilization in the history of the world, and to the necessities of a people whose government, laws, literature, com- merce, and social life have scarcely any resemblance to those of their rude ancestors six hundred years ago. y". E. R. Stephens, London, 1896.