An Essay On The Trial By Jury, Lysander Spooner [ebook reader browser .txt] 📗

Chapter 4 (The Rights And Duties Of Juries In Civil Suits) Pg 120

Whole Matter,  Law And Fact,  In civil Suits. The Provision Is

This:

 

"It Is Ordained,  That The Justices Assigned to Take The Assizes,

Shall Not Compel The Jurors To Say Precisely Whether It Be

Disseisin,  Or Not,  So That They Do Show The Truth Of The Deed,

And Seek Aid Of The Justices. But If They Will,  Of Their Own

Accord,  Say That It Is Disseisin,  Or Not,  Their Verdict Shall Be

Admitted at Their Own Peril."   13 Edward I.,  St. 1,  Ch. 3,  Sec.

2. (1285.)

 

The Question Of "Disseisin,  Or Not," Was A Question Of Law,  As

Well As Fact. This Statute,  Therefore,  Admits That The Law,  As

Well As The Fact,  Was In the Hands Of The Jury. The Statute Is

Nevertheless Void,  Because The King had No Authority To Give

Jurors A Dispensation From The Obligation Imposed upon Them By

Their Oaths And The "Law Of The Land," That They Should "Make

Known The Truth According their (Own) Consciences." This They

Were Bound To Do,  And There Was No Power In the King to Absolve

Them From The Duty. And The Attempt Of The King thus To Absolve

Them,  And Authorize Them To Throw The Case Into The Hands Of The

Judges For Decision,  Was Simply An Illegal And Unconstitutional

Attempt To Overturn The "Law Of The Land," Which He Was Sworn To

Maintain,  And Gather Power Into His Own Hands,  Through His

Judges. He Had Just As Much Constitutional Power To Enact That

The Jurors Should Not Be Compelled to Declare The Facts,  But That

They Might Leave Them To Be Determined by The King'S Judges,  As

He Had To Enact That They Should Not Be Compelled to Declare The

Law,  But Might Leave It To Be Decided by The King'S Judges. 122

It Was As Much The Legal Duty Of The Jury To Decide The Law As To

Decide The Fact; And No Law Of The King could Affect Their

Obligation To Do Either. And This Statute Is Only One Example Of

The Numberless Contrivances And Usurpations Which Have Been

Resorted to,  For The Purpose Of Destroying the Original And

Genuine Trial By Jury.

 

[1] Marches,  The Limits,  Or Boundaries,  Between England And

Wales.

 

[2] That The Kings Would Have Had No Scruples To Enact Laws For

The Special Purpose Of Plundering the People,  By Means Of The

Judgments Of Juries,  If They Could Have Got Juries To Acknowledge

The Authority Of Their Laws,  Is Evident From The Audacity With

Which They Plundered them,  Without Any Judgments Of Juries To

Authorize Them.

 

It Is Not Necessary To Occupy Space Here To Give Details As To

These Robberies; But Only Some Evidence Of The General Fact.

 

Hallam Says,  That "For The First Three Reigns (Of The Norman

Kings) * * The Intolerable Exactions Of Tribute,  The Rapine Of

Purveyance,  The Iniquity Of Royal Courts,  Are Continually In the

Mouths Of The Historians. ' God Sees The Wretched people,' Says

The Saxon Chronicler,  'Most Unjustly Oppressed; First They Are

Chapter 4 (The Rights And Duties Of Juries In Civil Suits) Pg 121

Despoiled of Their Possessions,  And Then Butchered.' This Was A

Grievous Year (1124). Whoever Had Any Property,  Lost It By Heavy

Taxes And Unjust Decrees."   2 Middle Ages,  435-6.

 

"In The Succeeding reign Of John,  All The Rapacious Exactions

Usual To These Norman Kings Were Not Only Redoubled,  But Mingled

With Outrages Of Tyranny Still More Intolerable.

 

"In 1207 John Took A Seventh Of The Movables Of Lay And Spiritual

Persons,  All Murmuring,  But None Daring to Speak Against It." 

Ditto,  446.

 

In Hume'S Account Of The Extortions Of Those Times,  The Following

Paragraph Occurs:

 

"But The Most Barefaced acts Of Tyranny And Oppression Were

Practised against The Jews,  Who Were Entirely Out Of The

Protection Of The Law,  And Were Abandoned to The Immeasurable

Rapacity Of The King and His Ministers. Besides Many Other

Indignities,  To Which They Were Continually Exposed,  It Appears

That They Were Once All Thrown Into Prison,  And The Sum Of 66,000

Marks Exacted for Their Liberty. At Another Time,  Isaac,  The Jew,

Paid Alone 5100 Marks",  Brun,  3000 Marks; Jurnet,  2000; Bennet,

500. At Another,  Licorica,  Widow Of David,  The Jew Of Oxford,  Was

Required to Pay 6000 Marks."   Hume'S Hist Eng.,  Appendix 2.

 

Further Accounts Of The Extortions And Oppressions Of The Kings

May Be Found In hume'S History,  Appendix 2,  And In hallam'S

Middle Ages,  Vol. 2,  P. 435 To 446.

 

By Magna Carta John Bound Himself To Make Restitution For Some

Of The Spoliations He Had Committed upon Individuals "Without The

Legal Judgment Of Their Peers."   See Magna Carta Of John,  Ch.

60,  61,  65 And 66.

 

One Of The Great Charges,  On Account Of Which The Nation Rose

Against John,  Was,  That He Plundered individuals Of Their

Property,  "Without Legal Judgment Of Their Peers." Now It Was

Evidently Very Weak And Short Sighted in john To Expose Himself

To Such Charges,  If His Laws Were Really Obligatory Upon The

Peers; Because,  In that Case,  He Could Have Enacted any Laws That

Were Necessary For His Purpose,  And Then,  By Civil Suits,  Have

Brought The Cases Before Juries For Their "Judgment," And Thus

Have Accomplished all His Robberies In a Perfectly Legal Manner.

 

There Would Evidently Have Been No Sense In these Complaints,

That He Deprived men Of Their Property "Without Legal Judgment Of

Their Peers," If His Laws Had Been Binding upon The Peers;

Because He Could Then Have Made The Same Spoliations As Well With

The Judgment Of The Peers As Without It. Taking the Judgment Of

The Peers In the Matter,  Would Have Been Only A Ridiculous And

Useless Formality,  If They Were To Exercise No Discretion Or

Conscience Of Their Own,  Independently Of The Laws Of The King.

 

Chapter 4 (The Rights And Duties Of Juries In Civil Suits) Pg 122

It May Here Be Mentioned,  In passing,  That The Same Would Be True

In Criminal Mature,  If The King'S Laws Were Obligatory Upon

Juries.

 

As An Illustration Of What Tyranny The Kings Would Sometimes

Practise,  Hume Says:

 

"It Appears From The Great Charter Itself,  That Not Only John,  A

Tyrannical Prince,  And Richard,  A Violent One,  But Their Father

Henry,  Under Whose Reign The Prevalence Of Gross Abuses Is The

Least To Be Suspected,  Were Accustomed,  From Their Sole

Authority,  Without Process Of Law,  To Imprison,  Banish,  And

Attaint The Freemen Of Their Kingdom."   Hume,  Appendix 2.

 

The Provision,  Also,  In the 64Th Chapter Of Magna Carta,  That "

All Unjust And Illegal Fines,  And All Amercements,  Imposed

Unjustly,  And Contrary To The Law Of The Land,  Shall Be Entirely

Forgiven," &C;.; And The Provision,  In chapter 61,  That The King

"Will Cause Full Justice To Be Administered" In regard To "All

Those Things,  Of Which Any Person Has,  Without Legal Judgment Of

His Peers,  Been Dispossessed or Deprived,  Either By King henry,

Our Father.,  Or Our Brother,  King richard," Indicate The

Tyrannical Practices That Prevailed.

 

We Are Told Also That John Himself "Had Dispossessed several

Great Men Without Any Judgment Of Their Peers,  Condemned others

To Cruel Deaths,  * * Insomuch That His Tyrannical Will Stood

Instead Of A Law."   Echard'S History Of England,  106.

Now All These Things Were Very Unnecessary And Foolish,  If His

Laws Were Binding upon Juries; Because,  In that Ease,  He Could

Have Procured the Conviction Of These Men In a Legal Manner,  And

Thus Have Saved the Necessity Of Such Usurpation. In short,  If

The Laws Of The King had Been Binding upon Juries,  There Is No

Robbery,  Vengeance,  Or Oppression,  Which He Could Not Have

Accomplished through The Judgments Of Juries. This Consideration

Is Sufficient,  Of Itself,  To Prove That The Laws Of The King were

Of No Authority Over A Jury,  In either Civil Or Criminal Cases,

Unless The Juries Regarded the Laws As Just In themselves.

 

[3] By The Magna Carta Of Henry Iii.,  This Is Changed to Once A

Year.

 

[4] From The Provision Of Magna Carta,  Cited in the Text,  It Must

Be Inferred that There Can Be No Legal Trial By Jury,  In civil

Eases,  If Only The King'S Justices Preside; That,  To Make The

Trial Legal,  There Must Be Other Persons,  Chosen By The People,

To Sit With Them; The Object Being to Prevent The Jury'S Being

Deceived by The Justices. I Think We Must Also Infer That The

King'S Justices Could Sit Only In the Three Actions Specially

Mentioned. We Cannot Go Beyond The Letter Of Magria Carta,  In

Making innovations Upon The Common Law,  Which Required all

Presiding officers In jury Trials To Be Elected by The People.

 

[5] ["The Earls,  Sheriffs,  And Head-Boroughs Were Annually

Chapter 4 (The Rights And Duties Of Juries In Civil Suits) Pg 123

Elected in the Full Folcmote,  (People'S Meeting)." Introduction

To Gilbert'S History Of The Common Pleas,  P. 2,  Note.

 

"It Was The Especial Province Of The Earldomen Or Earl To Attend

The Shyre-Meeting,  (The County Court,) Twice A Year,  And There

Officiate As The County Judge In expounding the Secular Laws,  As

Appears By The Fifth Of Edgar'S Laws."   Same,  P. 2,  Note.

 

"Every Ward Had Its Proper Alderman,  Who Was Chosen,  And Not

Imposed by The Prince."   Same,  P. 4,  Text.

 

"As The Aldermen,  Or Earls,  Were Always Chosen" (By The People)

"From Among The Greatest Thanes,  Who In those Times Were

Generally More Addicted to Arms Than To Letters,  They Were But

Ill-Qualified for The Administration Of Justice,  And Performing

The Civil Duties Of Their Office."   3 Henry'S History Of Great

Britain,  343.

 

"But None Of These Thanes Were Annually Elected in the Full

Folcmote,  (People'S Meeting,) As The Earls,  Sheriffs,  And

Head-Boroughs Were; Nor Did King alfred (As This Author Suggests)

Deprive The People Of The Election Of Those Last Mentioned

Magistrates And Nobles,  Much Less Did He Appoint Them Himself." 

Introd. To Gilbert'S Hist. Com. Pleas,  P. 2,  Note.

 

"The Sheriff Was Usually Not Appointed by The Lord,  But Elected

By The Freeholders Of The District."   Political Dictionary,  Word

Sheriff.

 

"Among The Most Remarkable Of