Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/275

 240

transform doomsmen into jurors when both these institutions have become fully estab lished, but that the jury should have been evolved from the doomsmen seems almost impossible." That it was taken to England by the Franks we may be confident; that it was original with them and that they did not acquire any portion of it from Scandi navia, we may be equally confident. True, the Scandinavian inquest seems to have de veloped independently; but as it was of later development than the Frankish inquest, it cannot be said to have influenced it. Some have contended that the entire jury system was indigenous in England, others have re garded it as the product of Anglo-Saxon genius, and still others that it was introduced into Europe from Asia during the Crusades, that it was of Slavonic origin, and from them was borrowed by the Saxons. Another in genious theory is that it was developed in Gallic soil from Roman principles, but this, as well as the other theories we have just mentioned, show upon examination that their inventors have been misled by super ficial evidence or that they argue from hypotheses only. The only theory which is able to stand any rigid test is that which ascribes its derivation to the royal custom of the Carlovingian kings. Some of these other theories may have a few facts to sup port them, but as there is practically no direct evidence of its Slavonic origin, and as is existed before the Crusades, we dismiss them without further discussion. According to Savigny, Bacon and Blackstone, besides many other great authorities, it was intro duced from primitive Germany. According to the same authorities it was employed there by the Franks to ascertain royal rights, local customs, and the existence of crime, as well as to decide questions of dis pute betweeen parties consenting to its use. The Carlovingian kings issued instruc tions to their Missi much as did Henry II. to his itinerant Justices. We do not find this to have been practised by the Danes,

Scandinavians, or by the people of southern Europe, through whom it is supposed by some that the origin of the jury trial can be traced. We do however find it more or less practised continuously by the Franks, and later for the same or similar purposes by the English, and these facts alone would indicate that the practice had the some ori gin, and had descended from the time of the Carlovingian rule to the time of Henry II. Much of the obscurity we encounter in tracing trial by jury from the Frankish in quest is due to the many forgeries which were incident to the frequent quarrels and varying fortunes of Church and State, and also the unreliable character of all written documents of the time. Then too for a time during the Middle Ages, deep darkness settled down on the Germanic legal ideas, and the sworn inquest of neighbors on the continent, except perhaps in Normandy, was almost unknown because of the rise of the Roman and Canon law, and we may safely say that but for the conquest of Eng land by the Normans it would have perished long ago and now be only a matter of legal curiosity. Let us now see what was taking place in England before the Norman Conquest. In the early Saxon government of England we find what, by a later development, was to be the grand jury, exercising its functions. This royal inquest, for such we may call it, consisted of twelve or more men chosen from every hundred by the sheriff of the county, whose duty it was to investigate the condition of the hundred, inquire into the conduct of its members, and upon charge brought by the sheriff or by their own com plaint, accuse and indict all who had been guilty of offence. But the accusation of suspected persons in criminal cases by one jury of twelve men or more of their fellow citizens, and the subsequent trial by a second jury of twelve different men is a course of procedure which seems to have been adopted in England alone, and to have arisen as did