Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/304

 London Legal Letter. by the fact that the qualifications of a juror are that he must be a householder, or the oc cupier of a shop, warehouse, counting-house, chambers or offices for the purpose of trade or commerce within the city, and have lands, tenements and personal estate the value of the equivalent of five hundred dollars. A book called the "Jurors' Book" is annually made up in each county, out of lists returned from each parish by the overseers, of per sons qualified to serve as jurors. One of the Judges in anticipation of an ensuing term of court directs the sheriff to summon a suf ficient number of jurors for the trial of all issues, whether civil or criminal, which may come on for trial at the assizes or sittings. A printed panel containing the names of those thus summoned is made by the sheriff seven days before the term opens, and kept in the office for inspection, and a printed copy of such panel is delivered to any party applying for it on payment of a shilling. When a case is called for trial the jury is formed by draw ing out, one after another, in open court, from a box into which all the names in the panel have been put, the names of twelve men, and these are then sworn. The fact that the right of challenge is exercised not oftener on an average than once a year, and then only as to a single juror out of each panel, may be taken as proof of the satis factory character of the jurors and the sys tem under which they are selected. The second interesting feature of this trial lies in the fact that the accused's counsel did not avail themselves of the opportunity to put the prisoner into the witness-box, and thus afford him an opportunity to explain his whereabouts on the night of the murder and to clear away certain incriminating cir cumstances. The right of a prisoner to testify on his own behalf is of very recent origin in England, and this is the most important mur der trial which has occurred since the act was passed. When the enabling bill was before Parliament, those who opposed it based their arguments on the ground that, if an accused person could be a witness for himself, it

273

would tempt a shrewd and clever criminal to commit unlimited perjury and to concoct such a story as would enable him to escape conviction. Bennett did not lack shrewd ness, and had lived profitably on his wit for years. It was manifest, however, that, no matter how clever he might be, he could not face cross-examination, and he was there fore kept out of the witness box. Although, under the statute, this circumstance could not be commented upon by the prosecution, the inference was obvious to the jury, as well as to the judge, and is in itself a strong argu ment in favor of the new procedure. The further feature of this trial which would excite comment in the United States is that from beginning to end—and it lasted nearly a week—there were practically no ob jections to evidence taken by counsel, no exceptions saved and no appeal lodged. The proceedings were conducted with the utmost care as well as decorum. The Lord Chief Justice gave the fullest latitude to the de fence, and in his summing up devoted sev eral hours to the law and to the evidence. It would be impossible to select a better ex ample of the fairness and impartiality of English justice, and when the verdict was finally rendered, there was a universal feel ing that it was the only verdict possible under the circumstances. The other trial, which excited even more attention, was a libel action brought by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain against two newspapers for articles alleged to be defamatory of him. Mr. Chamberlain is the brother of the famous Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Sec retary. The articles in question charged both brothers with having used or attempted to use the position of the Colonial Secretary to secure contracts from the Government for companies in which it was alleged both the Mr. Chamberlains and other members of their families were interested. The articles were couched in what, for an English news paper, may be considered a most offensive style, and were obvioxisly intended for the effect they might produce upon the recent