England by means of the "ordeals." If a man was accused of any crime he had to undergo the following rather painful and unique process. First, he had to endure three whole days of fasting and prayer in church, where were assembled his accusers and twelve witnesses, or jurors. The Litany being read when the three days of fasting were over, the suspected man had to plunge his hand into boiling water, or in lieu of this, to take three steps with a bar of red-hot iron in his band. Wrapping up the scorched or scalded cloth in hand, the priest sealed it up for three days. If, at the end of that time, the wound was healed, it was accepted as a proof of innocence; raw flesh proved guilt. In this trial, the jurors had to see that the ordeal was properly endured, and in case the accused should make any confes sion the jurors were witnesses to it. The old oath was that each should "speak the truth," but in the reign of Henry VI. the formula was changed, and the jury was sworn to "decide according to the evidence." Thus, from having been witnesses, the indi viduals summoned grew into jurors, hearing others give the evidence, instead of being the givers of the evidence. Though the jury is sworn to decide ac cording to the evidence, the judges are not all agreed as to whether a jury can go be hind that evidence and bring in a verdict based on their own knowledge or belief. Lord Chief Justice Hale expressed himself on this subject in the following terms: "The trial is not here simply by witnesses, but by jury; nay, it may so fall out, that a jury, upon their own knowledge, may know a thing to be false, that a witness swore to be true, or may know a witness to be in competent or incredible, though nothing be objected against him—and may give their verdict accordingly." (History of the Com mon Law of England, chap. 12, sect. 11.) It was evidently the intention to make the
jury the sole judge of the guilt or innocence of an accused, and as one writer says that this is an advantage, because no convicted man can say who was actually responsible for his conviction, seeing that twelve men must individually and collectively have been agreed. A jury must hear the evidence, and not act as a jury is said to have done in Australia a few years since. An accused pleaded "Not guilty," and at once the jury started to leave the court. They were asked why they left their seats, and the foreman replied that "the man said he was not guilty, so what was the use of trying him?" Sometimes very curious points have been raised concerning juries. When Home Tooke was arraigned on a charge of treason, the old formula read that he would be tried by "his God and his country," and Tooke raised an objection, claiming that he must be tried by God as well as his country, and that only his country was represented in court. During the Fenian excitement, a little over thirty years ago, an Irish-American be ing accused of treason, demanded a jury de medictatc linguae, claiming that it meant that half the jury should be composed of foreigners, and as he was an American, he wanted to avail himself of the right accorded foreigners. His request was denied. In Scotland, the jury, in a criminal case, can bring in a verdict of "not proven," which covers a case where the moral evidence is stronger than the legal testimony. In civil cases a jury, after having been kept three hours in deliberation, can bring in a verdict, if nine agree, but if nine cannot agree after nine hours, the jury must be discharged. The jury system is not perfect, but it seems to be the best adapted to our needs, and, certainly no better mode of judging of the right or wrong, innocence or guilt of an ac cused has been suggested.
