Throckmorton was indicted for high trea son, and after a shamefully one-sided trial, the jury were almost directed to find him guilty. After a long absence from the court they returned and deliberately pronounced a verdict of " Not guilty." " Upon this," says the reporter, " the Lord Chief-Justice remon strated with them in a threatening tone, say ing, ' Remember yourselves better. Have you considered substantially the whole evi dence as it was declared and recited? The matter doth touch the queen's highness and yourselves also; take good heed what you do.'" When he had finished Whetston, the foreman, said: " My lord, we have found him not guilty, agreeably to our consciences; and so say we all." But the jury suffered griev ously for their honesty; the court committed all twelve to prison : four were soon dis charged on humbly admitting that they had done wrong; but of the remaining eight, the Star Chamber adjudged that three of them should be fined £2000 each, and the other five £200 each. So much for impartiality in the sixteenth century! Throckmorton's jury had, however, broken the ice, and others were not slow in following their example; and for more than one hun dred years after, battles were being continu ally fought between judge and jury with ever-varying results In poor Mrs. Lisle's case the judge (Jeffreys) gained the day; on William Penn's trial the jury stood firm and triumphed; but the most glorious example of their success was shown upon the trial of the seven bishops in 1688, from which period we may date the decline of the arbitrary au thority which the judges had before exercised. While our modern jury system is a vast improvement over that which has preceded it, still it must be admitted that many glaring defects still remain in this noble institution. The composition of our juries is a matter which must cause a vast deal of reflection to the thinking man. Cases involving ques tions requiring the utmost intelligence for their consideration are often submitted to men possessing not even ordinary reasoning
powers; and criminal matters, involving as they frequently do the lives of fellow crea tures, whose guilt or innocence can only be determined upon by disentangling with the utmost nicety the most conflicting evidence, are intrusted to men often of very limited endowments. No one unused to the proceedings in our criminal courts would believe what strange exposures of the ignorance of jurymen now ^jhd then take place. Prisoners have before now been declared guilty and recommended to mercy on the ground that the jury were not quite sure that they did it. A jury at Cardigan found a man guilty of arson with £20 damages. Another set of " clodhop pers," trying a man for murder, and being much confused by the judge telling them that upon the same indictment, if not satisfied as to the capital crime having been commit ted, they could find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, just as they could on an indict ment for child-murder find a woman guilty of concealing the birth, — after deliberating for a long while, found the man guilty of concealing the birth of the deceased. A few years ago a poor woman was tried at an assize town in South Wales, for the murder of her infant. The jury appeared to listen to the case with the utmost attention; but what was the general astonishment when upon the conclusion of the " summing up," the foreman addressed the judge with : " My lord, I wish to say that I am the only man on the jury understanding English." Of course, nothing could be done in such a case; the prisoner had been given into their charge, and they were bound to convict or acquit her. The foreman had therefore to explain the case to his brother-jurymen, and it is hardly neces sary to say the woman was acquitted. A still more ridiculous instance of jury ignorance occurred some years ago on the Western Circuit. A man was indicted for burglary; the proofs were so clear against him, he having been caught in the act, that it was presumed that no defence would be attempted. His counsel, however, made a
