to reconsider their verdict, and shape it to the desired pattern. The last time, they were locked up for the night, but the morning found them of the same mind; and "Not guilty" was still their award. "I am sorry," said the irate recorder,—'I am sorry you have followed your own judgments and opinions rather than the good advice that was given you. I pray that my life be kept out of your hands! But for this the Court fines you forty marks a man, and commands imprisonment till paid." The four hundred and eighty marks not being forthcoming, the twelve really good men and true were consigned to durance vile in Newgate. A writ of habeas corpus soon opened the prison doors; and the case was referred to a full bench of twelve judges, who pronounced the fining and imprisonment to be contrary to law. The jurymen subsequently obtained exemplary damages for false imprisonment, and the freedom of the box was triumphantly established.
Modern jurors are not overpaid for their labor and loss of time; in the seventeenth century they were not paid at all when trying civil suits, but it was customary for the winner to give them a dinner for gratitude's sake. In criminal cases, involving no capital charge, it was the curious, and not very comprehensible rule, to pay them only when they acquitted the accused; but this rule was violated on one special occasion: Sir Thomas Smith recording that, "in the prosecution for the Popish Plot in Charles II.'s reign, the jury had more, and were treated higher, if they convicted a prisoner, than if they acquitted him. John Ince, writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury anent the jurymen locked up until they decided upon the guiltiness or non-guiltiness of the seven bishops, says: "We have watched the jury carefully all night, attending without the door on the stair-head. They have, by order, been kept all night without fire and candle, save only some basins of water and towels this morning about four. The officers and our servants, and others hired by us to watch the officers, have, and shall constantly attend, but must be supplied with fresh men to relieve our guard, if need be. . . . They beg for a candle to light their pipes, but are denied. In case a verdict pass for us, the present consideration will be, How shall the jury be treated? The course is usually, each man so many guineas, and a common dinner for them all. The quantum is at your Grace's and my Lord's desire. But it seems to my poor understanding, that the dinner might be spared, lest our watchful enemies should interpret it against us. It may be ordered thus; to each man guineas for his trouble, and each man a guinea over his desire— N. B. There must be 150 or 200 guineas provided." This system of payment by results smacks somewhat of bribery, but was calculated to prevent a jury yielding to temptation, as the twelve Sudbury men did, who, finding they could only agree in being very hungry, broke open the door of their room and quietly went to their homes.
A wise Indian judge made it a rule never to give any reasons for his judgments; consequently, no one ever thought of appealing from them. It is as well that juries do from compulsion what the judge did from choice. A good story is told of how a Devonshire jury came to acquit a doctor who had accidentally killed an old woman by mixing her medicine a trifle too carelessly. As soon as they were comfortably seated in their retiring-room, the foreman told them they must settle as quickly as possible whether or not they would hang the doctor, that they might get home to supper in good time, and that the quickest way of despatching the business would be for him to take the opinion of each in turn, and let the most votes decide the matter. Upon this point, at any rate, the jury were unanimous, and the foreman proceeded to put the question. One said he did not care which way it went,—hanging the doctor would neither harm him nor do him any good. Another said that the doctor had lately saved the lives of two of his children mortal bad with the small-pox, while
