Development of currence Trial by of twelve Jury.and a majority, would 243 out witnesses, would indicate that their previous knowledge of the facts did not dis qualify them from serving, but that this element was counted on and was deemed essential to the just consideration of the case. This feature of their requirements however was gradually thrown into the background, and it was insisted that a juror in order to serve should have no knowledge of the facts and circumstances except as they were revealed in open court. This is the form it had assumed at the time of Edward VI., and in this form it has come down to the present day. Yet we do not find until about the middle of the sixteenth century any trace of a process known to the law for summoning witnesses. The development of the trial by jury has by this time been practically completed, and we turn to it as employed in England and America at the present time. In England, as well as in most of the United States, we find the grand jury acting as the medium of accusation. They do not try the accused, but consider accusations fcr the purpose of determining if there is enough doubt or suspicion to warrant a trial by a' second jury. This grand jury consists of not more than twenty-three, nor less than twelve men, who after they have ber-n charged by the judge, give attention to each particular case, examining witnesses as in an ex parte proceeding, and if they think that sufficient evidence has been .oduced to warrant an indictment, they find a true bill against the defendant, and if not, they dis miss the action as unworthy of further con sideration. There is a custom of long stand ing which provides that no man shall be con demned unless twelve men concur in an in dictment against him, and because of this custom, which was later incorporated into the - American laws, we see the maximum number of grand jurors fixed at twentythree, for with such a number or less, a judgment of twelve against him would give a majority, and these two factors, the con-
constitute the authoritv for issuing the bi'l of indictment. The subsequent part of the trial of crimin als is performed by the petit jury. It is the practice in England that the prisoner should not, except in certain cases, such as treason, be acquainted previous to the trial with the character of the charge brought against him, nor is he allowed a knowledge of the wit nesses who are to appear against him. He is arraigned before the court without any pre paration of his case, and is asked to plead. He cannot demand counsel from the crown to defend him, but generally has very little trouble to secure such. In the United States, however, he is furnished with a thorough knowledge of the charge against him. But he is not supposed to have a previous knowl edge of the witnesses who are to appear against him. He also has the privilege of a thorough preparation of his case, and will be furnished with a lawyer by the State if he is unable to procure one for himself. In England, as in the United States, he is al lowed to challenge the jurors to some extent without giving reasons, but beyond this he must give valid reasons why they should not serve. Many of these things however, are of local importance, and it is necessary to ex amine the State laws in order to find out what the true conditions are. After the jurors have been selected and sworn, the ex amination of witnesses, the remarks of the lawyers, and the charge of the judge follows, but as this proceeding in England and the United States is practically the same and is well known to all, we pass over it to a few peculiarities which exist in giving the ver dict. If the jurv are unable to agree they are discharged and a new jury is summoned, before whom the process of trial is repeated. But in England neither the jury nor the judge can grant freedom to the prisoner as can be done in the United States. This is the privilege of the Crown alone, and in this he is advised by the Home Secretary who
