Trial by Jury
In England, when the aspect of the French Revolution divided our public men into factions—in the evil time, when statesmen had talked complacently “of a vigour beyond the law,” when judges had tortured free speech into sedition, and when open violence and secret art were sapping the liberties we prize most dearly, English juries, with the approbation of the country, interposed frequently against political wrong, and vindicated the good cause that elsewhere had been abandoned. As for the loyalty and good sense of the nation as a whole, the mode in which it obeyed the Government attests this in a remarkable way; and though, of course, the Revolution in France stirred up some elements of disorder here, they were as nothing among the great mass of Englishmen. This truth is urged by Mr. Massey with more force than by any other historian, and it deserves to be put prominently forward, as several writers have asserted the contrary. In his very instructive summary of the state of English opinion at this period, he says:
“Because freedom had been abused at Paris, the liberties of Englishmen were assailed. The press was put under restraint; legions of spies were let loose upon the country, and no man could speak his mind in safety, or even do the most harmless act without fear of question. It is no wonder that the old English feeling was aroused, and that the State trials of 1794 were regarded with an intensity of interest which had not been equalled since that of the Seven Bishops. The public safety at that time depended on the trial by jury, and men were satisfied that their liberties were safe when it appeared that the great institution which had so often sustained them was still sound and unshaken.... Happily the prosecutions failed, and from their failure was derived that security which but for these trials would not have been ascertained.”—Times review of Massey’s History of England.
That sound and experienced judge, Sir John Coleridge, in a lecture delivered by him at the Athenæum, Exeter, stated that
He had been a judge for an unusually long period, and he should ever regard with admiration the manner in which juries discharged their duties. Again and again he had reason to marvel at their patience, and again and again he had observed questions put by a jury which had been omitted by counsel and judge, the answer to which had thrown a light that had guided them to the truth of the whole matter. He had often thought if he had the appointment of the magistrates in the country, that he would appoint those gentlemen who had served on petty juries on the Crown side for two assizes at least; for he was sure that a more practical knowledge of criminal law was learnt in that way than could be acquired by several months of careful reading. One thing should always be remembered, that stupid verdicts were no arguments against the institution, for no human institution, however wise in itself, could be expected to work perfectly. Let them improve their jurymen by raising the character of their national education; let them introduce into their panels all classes who by law were liable to serve; and when they had done that, and not till then, if they found it to fail, let them condemn the institution. They lived under a law which, though far from perfect, was framed in a wise and just spirit. They could not possibly overrate the blessing which they possessed, yet it was so much a matter of course that they were apt to think as little of it as they did of the sun that shone upon them from Heaven.