yuries as They IVere and Are. the matter in dispute, and not until so late as the reign of Anne that witnesses for a prisoner were heard upon oath. The position of jurymen in " the good old times " must have been one of no ordinary severity. The fundamental rule was that the twelve men must agree in order to form a legal verdict. Why twelve were chosen in preference to any other number does not ap pear; and the only explanation, if it may be called one, is that of Sir Edward Coke, who says that twelve "is a number in which the law delighteth." In order then to get these twelve men to agree, all kinds of manoeuvres were used. At first the practice of adding fresh jurymen, and turning away those who would not agree with the majority, techni cally called " afforcing." was adopted; but this was attended with the expense of so much time and trouble as to be almost use less. Then it became the custom to heavily fine those who would not agree with the majority, and this shortened matters a good deal; subsequently the verdict of the major ity was taken, the dissentients being fined or imprisoned; and at last the practice was adopted which has descended to the present day, of confining the sacred twelve alone, without meat, drink, or fire, until the verdict was satisfactory. In some of our old law books we meet with very amusing accounts of unfortunate jurymen being detected in attempting to evade this very stringent measure, and their peccadilloes seem always to have met with severe chastisement. Thus, in Hilary term, 6 Henry VIII., we have a long account of a motion in the King's Bench to arrest a judgment obtained at the previous assizes, on the ground that the jurors had "improperly eaten and drank;" and says the report, " upon examination it was found that the jury had after long con sideration agreed, and returning to the court house to give in their verdict, they saw Read, C. J., in the way running to see a fray, and they followed him, and all ate bread and drank a horn of ale; and for this every one was fined 40
301
forty shillings, but the pit. had his judg ment stand upon their verdict." The report does not inform us what fine was inflicted upon the learned judge for leaving the judg ment-seat " to see a fray." In another case of " Mounson v. West," about the same period, the jury had been absent so long to consider their verdict, that "the court did suspect, and gave command ment that a trusty man should search them, which was done, when some had figs in their pouches, and some had pippins, and some did confess that they had eaten of figs, and some that they had pippins, but had not eaten thereof; whereupon after great and solemn advice and consideration, they who had eaten of the figs were fined £$ each, and they who had pippins, of which they had not eaten, forty shillings each." Shortly afterward the court of Queen's Bench declared that for " a juryman to have sweetmeats in his pocket was a high misde meanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both." It was not, however, on the score of eating when he should have been fasting alone, that the juryman's life was a hard one; if the judge considered that their verdict was against evidence, they might be punished with loss of all their personal property, might be imprisoned for a year, and were ever afterward considered infamous; while the amount of bullying to which they were ex posed, both from the judge and from the counsel, would scarcely be credited at the present day. They were threatened, laughed at, and even taunted with being accessory to the prisoner's guilt, if they hesitated about giving the desired verdict. After enduring all this uncomplainingly for some hundred years, we find juries about the middle of the sixteenth century suddenly attempting to throw off the disgraceful shackles with which they had been for so long loaded. The first important case on record in which a jury boldly stood out against the judge is that of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, tried at Guild hall in 1554.
