History of Trial by Jury

398
HISTORY OF TRIAL BY JURY BY WILLIAM FORSYTH, M.A. LATE.FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND AUTHOR OF "HORTE N SIU OR HISTORY OF LAWYERS." SECOND EDITION, PREPARED BY JAMES APPLETON MORGAN, EsQ. AUTHOR OF "THE LAW OF LITERATURE," ETC., ETC. 1875 JERSEY CITY: FREDERICK D. LINN & COMPANY, PUBLISHER S.

description

Trial by Jury

Transcript of History of Trial by Jury

HISTORYOFTRIALBYJURYBYWILLIAMFORSYTH,M.A.LATE.FELLOWOFTRINITYCOLLEGE,CAMBRIDGE,ANDAUTHOROF "HORTENSIUORHISTORYOFLAWYERS."SECONDEDITION,PREPAREDBYJAMESAPPLETONMORGAN,EsQ.AUTHOROF "THELAW OFLITERATURE,"ETC.,ETC.1875JERSEYCITY:FREDERICKD.LINN&COMPANY,PUBLISHERS.PREFACE.Nhisprefacetotheprdsentworkitsauthorobservesthat,"It is remarkable that no HistoryofTrialbyJuryhaseveryetappearedinthiscountry.Severallearnedessaysonits originhave,indeed, fromtimeto timebeenwritten,butchieflyinreviews,andthefugitiveliteratureoftheday.InGermanythesubjectoftheJuryhasotlateyearsoccupiedmuchattention,andhasbeeninves-tigatedwithlaboriousaccuracy.Iwould especiallymentiontheworksof Rogge,Phillips, Gunderman,Welcker,Mittermaier,andGneist.ButnoEng-lish lawyerhashithertodevotedhimself to thetaskofgivingafullandhistoricalaccountoftheriseandgrowthofthe JurySystem,althoughit wouldbeunjustnottoacknowledgesomevaluablecon-tributionsbythelate Mr. Starkie, inarticles writtenbyhiminthe Law Reviewandelsewhere;andSirFrancisPalgravehas, inhisRise and Progress ofthe English Commonweall,thrownmuchlightonthenatureof theearliestformof Jury Trialknownto ourancestors..And yetthe subjectisone whichPREFACA.canbeproperlydiscussedbythoseonlywhopos-sess competentlegalknowledge;andit mighthavebeenthoughtthatitwouldhaveattractedthecuri-osity,andexercisedthepenofourlegalwriters.Butitwas,many yearsago, madea reproachagainstusbythelategreatAmericanjurist,Mr.JusticeStory, that weconfineourselvestoofnuchtothetechnicalitiesof ourprofession.Hesays:"'Thereisa remarkabledifferenceinthemanneroftreating juridicalsubjectsbetweenthe foreign and the Eng-.ishjurists.The former,almostuniversally, discusseverysubjectwithanelaboratetheoreticalfullness andaccuracy,andascend totheelementaryprinciplesof eachparticularbranchofthescience.Thelatter,withfewexceptions,writepracticaltreatiseswhichcontainlittifemorethanacollectionof the principles laid downin the adjudgedcases,withscarcelyanattemptto illustratethemby anygeneralreasoning,or eventofollowthemoutintocollateralcon-sequences.Inshort,thesetreatisesarebutlittlemorethan fullindexestothereports,arrangedunder appropri-ateheads;andthematerialsareoftentiedtogetherbyvery slenderthreadsof connection.'"Butintruthwe canhardlybesurprisedatthis.AnEnglishlawyerhassmallencouragementtowriteanythingelsebuta'practicaltreatise.'Thatistheonlykindof literaturein whichhecansafelyappearasanauthor, or whichgiveshimachanceof attainingwhatissupposedtobethegreat objectofhisexistence-professionalsuccess.AndthePREFACE.,Abliccarelittlefor historicalinquiries, exceptsuchasareof a popularandamusingkind.IambynomeanssanguinethatthesubjectIhavechosenwillexcitesufficientinteresttosecureitafavorablehearing;and thereforeI canhardlybedisappointedin the result.ButIamnotwithouthopesthatreaders,iffew,yetfit,maybefound,whowillcareto knowsomethingoftheoriginanddevelopmentofasystemsoimportantinanationalpointofviewasthat of theJury.TosuchIcommendmylabors.Ihavetraveledovertoo wideafieldnotto fearthatIhavecommittedsomeerrors;butItrusttheyareneithernumerousnorimportant.Andtheywho bestknowthedifficultiesofthein-quirywillbethemostlenientintheircensure."Inthe presenteditionIhavetakenthelibertyofaddingafewnotestoMr. Forsyth'stext, andofcorrectingoPe ortwoinaccuraciesinhischapterupon"JuriesintheUnitedStates."JAMESAPPLETONMORGAN.321.W875,22 9BROADWAY,NEWYOULCONTENTS.CHAPTER 1.THENATUREOFTHEJURYSYSTEM.Sac.PArmI.VariousTheoriesrespectingtheOriginof theJury.II.Causesof mistaken Viewson theSubject.....5CHAPTERII.THE ANCIENTTRIBUNALSOF SCANDINAVIA.rsI.TheNorwegianLaugrettomen........II.TheSwedishNAmbd..x9III.The DanishTingniend,N1evninger,andSandemmnd. 23IV.TheIce'qndicT6lftar-Quidr..CHAPTERIII.LEGALTRIBUNALSOFANCIENTGERMAN-i1.Constitutionof the old GermanCourtsof Justice. 3I.The Mode of Proof inthe ancientCourtsof Germany.. 40CHAPTERIV.THEJUDICIALSYSTEM.OFTHEANGLO.SAXONS.1.Trialby Juryunknowntothe Anglo-Saxons. 45II.TheWergild.......48III.TheFridborh. s.****59IV. TheAnglo-SaxonCourts52viiiCONTE.NTS.V.Examplesof Anglo-SaxonCivil Trials59VI.OftheCompurgators61........6rVII.Of the legallyappointedWitnesesia the Anglo-SaxonLaw70VIII.Resultsof the Investigation. ..76CHAPTERV.THEANGLO-NORMANPERIOD.I.Onthelegal ChangesintroducedbytheNormans. 78II.Modesof Trialin CivilSuits inthe Anglo-NormanTimes82III.TheMeaning andNatureof theJudiciumParium. 91IV.TheCourtsestablished bythe AssisesdeJerusalem. . 95CHAPTERVI.THEJURYINTHETIMEOFTHEPLAN-TAGENETS.I.Onthe Assizeas establishedbyHenryII. .....zoII.What suggestedtheidea of Trial byAssize..ioUI.SubsequentHistoryof theAssizo...... 112IV.OntheTrialbythe Ywu'ta,andthe meaningof theexpressionAssisavertitur inJuratamX5CHAPTERVII.THE JURYCEASINGTOBEWITNESSESBECOMEJUDGESOFEVIDENCE.I.ModeofTrialwhereWitnesseswerenamedin Deeds. 125II.ModeofTrialperSectam.1..28III.OnthepersonalknowledgeoftheJuryasdistinctfromtheEvidence. ... 13CCHAPTERVIIIJURYSYSTEMINCIVILTRIALS.I.TheJury Process13SII.OnSpecial Juries... ... . . .142III.OnChallenges14!....IV.OnAttaints andNew Trials.149....... 14gCONT"ENTS.ixCHAPTERIX.JURYINCRIMINALCASES.SECT.PAGEI.Ancientl\ode of presenting Offenses...x59II.Riseand Growthofthe JurySystemfortheTrialofAccusa-tions165.....6III.TrialbyJury inCriminalCasesin Jersey.....72CHAPTERX.THEGRANDJURY,ANDOTHERMATTERSRELATINGTOCRIMINALTRIALS.I.TheGrandJury1........78II.The Coroner'sJury1......x86III.The Jury deMedietateLingue... . . . . 89TV.Challenges inCriminalTrialsX......91V.Questionof newTrialinCasesof Convictionof Felony. r93CHAPTERXI.REQUIREMENTOFUNANIMITYINTHEJURY.I.Originof theRuleastoUnanimity1.....97II.Questionof the ReasonablenessoftheRule considered. 203CHAPTERXII.ONTHEPROPER PROVINCEOF THE JURY.I.Powersand Dutiesof Juriesin England.. ..216II.Distinctionbetweenthe Officeof the Judge andthat of the Jury235III.MixedQuestions ofLaw andFact. ....242IV.Presumptionsof Law andFact.... .....243V.Utility of WrittenPleadings2......46CHAPTERXIII.THEJURYSYSTEMINSCOTLAND.LJuryTrial inCivilCases. 24. 2 49CONTENTS.Scr.PAGII.The AssizeinCriminalTrials.... ......27III.TheVerdict of Not Proven.......28CHAPTERXIV.THEJURYINTHEUNITEDSTATES.28CHAPTERXV.TRIALBYJURYINFRANCEANDOTHERPARTSOFTHECONTINENT.ITrialby Jury inFrance2S11.TheJury in other partsof theContinent.... 31CHAPTERXVI.INTRODUCTIONOFTRIALBYJURYINTOTHICRIMINALPROCEDUREINGERMANY.I.Systemof CriminalProcedurewhichTrial byJurywasintendedtosupersede.. . ..33II.Introductionofthe JuryTrialin CriminalCases3.CHAPTERXVII.ILLUSTRATIONSOFTRIALBYJURYINTHECASEOF ENGLISHSTATEPROSECUTIONS.s:CHAPTERXVIII..THEj1URYCONSIDEREDASASOCIAL,POLIT:'.XLANDJUDICIALINSTITUTION.3!HISTORYOFTRIAL.BYJURY.CHAPTERI.THENATUREOFTHEJURYSYSTEM.SECTIONI.VariousTheoriesrespecting theOriginofthe _7ury.THE riseandgrowthoftheJurysystemisasub-jectwhichoughttointerestnotonly thelawyerbutallwhovaluetheinstitutionsofEngland,of whichthisisoneofthemost remarkable,beinguntilrecentlya distinctivefeatureof our jurisprudence.Inthe followingpagesanattemptismadetoinvesti-gateitsoriginand4traceitshistory, until itassumedthewell-definedformandofficewith whichwearesofamil-iar, butwhichlongexcitedtheadmirationandenvyofthenationsof Europe,until atlast,byslowdegreesandtoapartialextent,manyofthemhavesucceededinadoptingitthemselves.Theinquiryismoredifficultthanmayatfirstsightappear.Trialby Jurydoesnotoweitsexistencetoanypositivelaw :-itisnotthecreatureofanActofParliamentestablishingtheformanddefiningthefunctionsofthenewtribunal.Itarose,asIhopetoshow,sileitly andgradually,outofthe usagesof astate ofsociety whichhasforeverpassedNATUREOFJURYSYSTEM.away, butofwhichitisnecessarytohaveaclearidea,inorderto understandhowthismodeoftrialfirstcameintoexistence.Fewsubjectshave -exercised theingenuityand baffledtheresearchofthehistorianmorethantheoriginof thejury.Nolongtime haselapsedsincethepopularopin--ionwas-andperhapsitevennowprevails-thatit wasaninstitutionestablishedby AlfredtheGreat;andwepridedourselvesontheideathatthis wasoneofthelegaciesoffreedombequeathedtousbyourAnglo-.Saxonanceqtors.2Anenlightenedspiritofhistoricalcriticismappliedtothesubjecthas,however,oflateyearsdove muchtodissipate thisdelusion ;andit wouldbeunjust nottoacknowledgehowgreatlyinthiscoun-tryweareindebtedformorecorrectviewstothelaborsof Reeves,Palgrave,Starkie,andHallam.Butthejur-istsofGermanyalsodeservethepraiseof havingin-vestigatedthequestionwithprofoundlearningandsearchingaccuracy,andthefrequentreferencemadeinthecourseofthistreatisetotheir workswillprovehowfullyIappreciatetheservicestheyhaverenderedintheelucidationof thepresentinquiry.Numeroushavebeenthe theoriesastothebirthandparentageofthisthefavoritechildofthe Englishlaw.Somewritershavethoughttheoriginsolostinthedarknessofantiquity,astorenderinvestigationhope-less.ThusBourguignonsays,'"Its originislost inthenightoftime;"andthelateChiefCommissionerAdamdeclaresthat"inEnglanditisofatraditionsohighthatnothingisknownofitsorigin;andofaperfectionI Amongstthe cartoonsexhibitedas designsfor the decorationof the newI BusesofParliament,one ofthose whichobtained aprizewascalledthePhnt TrialL) jury.Weseetherethe culpritbroughtbeforetwelveSaxonjurors sitting inthe presenceofa judgeintheopen air.Thepicturewelldeservesitsreputationasa workofart; butasthe representationofanhistoricalfactitisuntrue.Son originese perddans]anuitdestemps.Mdmoiresur le Jury.[Ctl.TIBO-IES ASTOOIGZN.soabsolutethatithasremainedinunabatedrigorfromitscommencemit tothe presenttime."'Spelmanwasuncertainwhethertoattributetheoriginofthe systemtotheSaxonsorthe Normans.DuCangeandHickesascribeditsintroductiontotheNormans,whothem-selvesborrowedtheideafromtheGoths.Blackstonecallsit "atrialthathathbeenusedtimeoutofmindinthis nation,andseemstohavebeencoevalwiththefirstcivilgovernmentthereof; "andheadds," that cer-tainitisthatjurieswereinuseamongtheearliestSaxoncolonies."In his learnedwork on"TheOrigin andProgressof theJudicialInstitutionsofEurope,"Meyerregardsthejuryaspartlya -modificationoftheGrandAssizeestablishedbyHenryII.,andpartlyanimitationofthefeudalcourtserectedinPalestinebytheCru-saders;andhefixesuponthereignofHenryIII.asthemraofitsintroductionintoEngland.'ThetheoryofReeves in his"History of the EnglishLaw"is,that whenRolloledhisfollowersintoNormandytheycarriedwiththemthismodeoftrialfromtheNorth.Hesaysthatit was usedinNormandyin all casesof smallimportance,andthatwhenthe Normans had transplantedthemselvesintoEnglandtheyendeavoredtosubstituteitintheplaceof theSaxontribunals.Hespeaksofitthereforeasa novelty introducedby themsoonafter the Conquest.andsaysthatitmaybelaiddownwithsafety thatthesystemdidnotexistinAnglo-Saxontimes.'Turner,ontheother hand, in his"Historyof the Anglo-Saxons,"thinksthatitwastheninuse,"althoughnorecordmarksthe dateofitscommencement;"' andheoughttohaveadded,or" noticesthefactofitsexistence."Sir FrancisPalgravesays,thatatribunalofswornwit-nesseselectedoutofthe popularcourtsandemployedITreatise onTrial by Jury inCivil Causes(inScotland).2 Orig. etProgisdes Inst.Judic. tom.II.c.ii,3 Hist.EnglishLaw,I.c.i;II.c.2.4 Hist.Ang-Saxons,III. 223.NATUREOF JURYSYSTEM.for thedecisionofrightsofproperty,may betracedtotheAnglo-Saxonperiod;but thatincriminalcasesthejury appearsto havebeenunknownuntilenactedby theConqueror.'Theopinionofoneofthelatestandablestofourlegalwriters,Mr. SergeafitStephen,seemstocoincidewiththatofReeves,forhesays,"Themostprobabletheoryseemstobethatweowethegermof this (asofsomanyofourinstitutions) totheNormans,andthatitwasderivedbythemfromScandinaviantribunals,wherethe judicialnumberoftwelvewasalwaysheldingreatveneration."'HerefersalsototheGrandCous-tumier as justifyingtheideathatthejury isofNormanorigin.Butwemayremarkinpdssing,thatthis workwaswrittenlaterthantleyear1215;sothatwhat-evermaybethesimilarityofusagebetweenthetwocountrieswhichwefindthereinmentioned,itismoreprobablethattheNormanwasderivedfromtheEng-lish.Some writers,especially amongst the Germans, attributetheorigin of theEnglishJurytoa nationalrecognitionoftheprinciplethatnomanoughttobecondemnedexceptbythe voiceofhisfellow-citizens.AndastheancientcourtsofjusticeamongsttheTeutonicnationswerenothing morethanassembliesoffreemen,metto-gether for the purpose of deliberatingon whatever affectedtheinterestsof the gauordistrict of whichthey weretheinhabitants, includingthe punishmentof offensesand thesettlementofcivilclaims,it hasbeenthoughtthathereisto befoundthe assertionof thesameprincipleasper-vadesthe jury-trial,andthatthereforethelatter isde-rivedfromandonly amodificationof the former.But if thisbe so, howcan we account for the fact that inEngland alonethe system wasdevelopedintoits modern'RiseandProgressof Eng.Commonwealth,I. 256.'Comment.I1.349.(CH.I.)CAUSESOFMISTAKENVIEWS.form,andthat whileamidstallthefreedomofAnglo-Saxoninstitutionsit wasunknown,itfirstassumedadistinctandhistoricalcharacterunderthereignofaNormanking?Weshallsee,unlessIammistaken,inthecourseof ourinquiry,that thejurydoesnot oweitsexistencetoanypreconceivedtheoryof jurisprudence,but that it graduallygrew out of formspreviouslyinuse,andwascomposedof elementslongfamiliartothepeo-pleofthiscountry.Wheresuchdiversityofopinionprevails,and somanylearnedmenhaveprofessedtheirinabilitytopiercethe darknessthat surroundstheearlyhistoryof thesubject,itwellbecomesawritertobediffidentofhisownview;butI6annothelpfeelingpersuadedthat theriseof the jury systemmaybetracedasagradualandnaturalsequencefromthemodesoftrial inuseamongsttheAnglo-SaxonsandAnglo-Nor-mans,-that is, bothbeforeand afterthe Conquest,-andthatthereforeinordertounderstandhow itarose,wehaveonlyto makeourselvesfully acquaintedwiththosemodesof trial andthestateof societyonwhichthey sointimately depended.SECTIONII.Causes of mistaken Viewsonthe SubjectInendeavoringtotracetheoriginofanyinstitutionwhichhascomedownto usfromremoteantiquity,wemustcarefullyconsiderunderwhataspectitappearswhenfirstnoticedbycontemporarywriters.Thisoftendifferswidelyfromtheformandcharacterwhichitac-quiresintheslowgrowthofyears,andyetitsidentitymay be proved withas muchcertaintyas thatof the riverwhosewell-headisaspringoozingout ofagrassybed,and whichswellsintoabroadexpanseof watersbeforeit losesitself inthe ocean.Weshallonlybedeceivedifwefixourattentionuponitsmaturityratherthanitsinfancy;uponitsendratherthanitsbeginning.-InNATUREOFJURYSYSTEM.constitutionalhistorythisiseminentlytrue.Wemustdeal withinstitutionsasphilologydoes withwords.Toascertainthe derivationof thelatter we resolve themintotheirearliestknownforms,andtheseareoftentheonlycluewhereby wecandiscoverthestockfromwhichtheysprung,andthe meaningtheyprimarilybore.SointhecaseofTrialby Jury :-wemustdeterminethe pointoftime whenit isfirstmentionedasanhistor-icalfact,andseewhatwerethenitscharacteristicfeatures.Wemustknowitsprimitiveform, andobserveinwhatpointof viewitwaslookeduponbythe writersof theearlyages.Thesubsequentchangesithasunder-gone willnot throw much light uponits origin-nay, theyrathertendtomisleadusbysuggestingfalseanalogiesandwrongpoints ofcomparison;andmanyaspeciousbutmistakentheoryonthesubjectwouldhavebeenavoided,if dueattentionhadbeenpaidto theaccountsofthetruenatureofthetribunalwhichwefindinthepagesofGlanvillandBracton,andofwhichwefindin-cidentalnoticeincontemporaryannalsandrecords.Again,wemustbecarefulnotto attachtoomuchim-portancetoseeminganalogies,or mistakepartialresem-blancesforcompleteidentity.Itisthis whichhasledsomany writersto espouseconflictingviewsrespectingtheoriginofthejury.Byfixingtheirattentiononparticular pointsof twosystems, andfindingthattheseinagreatmeasurecorrespond,theyhaveimaginedthattheonemusthavebeencopiedfromtheother.ThussomethinkthattheydiscoverthearchetypeofthejuryintheTeutonicandSaxoncompurgators,whoweregenerallytwelveinnumber,andwhoseoaths wereconclusiveofthematterindispute.OthersderiveitfromtheRachinburgenorScabiniofthecontinentalnations;others fromthe sectatoresand paresof thean-cientcountyandfeudalcourtsinthiscountry.Oneimportantfeatureoftheinstitutionisbyno[Car.I.]CA USESOFMISTA.KENVIEWS.7meanspeculiarto it.Imeanthe factthat itisaswortribunal-thatitsmembersdecideunderthesolemnsanctionof anoath.Thiswas thecasewith the Dicastsat Athens andthe JudicesatRorhe,andthesameprin-cipleprevailedintheoldNorseTHINGandGermanMALLU.M.whentherightofalltheinhabitantsofthegauormarktobepresentatthejudicialproceedingsoftheseperiodicalassemblies,becameinpracticelim-itedtoa few,as the representativesofthe community.Butsufficientattentionhas notbeenpaidtowhatisthedistinctivecharacteristicofthesystem;namely,thatthe Juryconsistsof abody ofmentakenfromthecommunityatlarge,summonedtofindthetruthofdis-putedfacts,whoarequitedistinctfromthejudgesorcourt.Theirofficeistodecideupontheeffectofevi-dence, andthus informthecourttruly uponthequestionatissue,inorderthatthe lattermaybeenabledtopro-nouncearightjudgment.Buttheyarenotthecourtitself, nor dotheyformpartofit;andtheyhavenoth-ingtbdowiththesentencewhichfollowsthedeliveryoftheirverdict.Moreover,theyarenotmembersof anyclassorcorporation,onwhom,asdistinctfromtherestof theirfellow-citizens,isimposedthe taskoftakingpart injudicialinquiries.Theyarecalledupontoserveastheparticularoccasionarises,andthenre-turntotheirusualavocationsandpursuits,soastobeabsolutelyfreefromanyprofessionalbiasorprejudice.Few writers,whenspeculatingontheriseofthe jury,havekeptthisprincipleofitsbeingseparatefromthecourtandemployedsolelytodeterminequestionsoffact,steadilyinview.Theyhavegenerallyconfoundedthejurorswiththecourt, andhavethusimaginedanidentitybetweentheformer andthoseancienttribunalsofEuropewhereaselectnumberofpersons-oftentwelve-weretakenfroihthecommunityandappointedNATUREOF JURYSYSTEM'.totry causes, butwhodidsointhecapacityofjudges,andwhensatisfiedoftheevidenceawardedandpro-nouncedthe doom.Theseare theGeschwornen-Gerichteto whichthe jur-ists ofGermanyof lateyearshavebeensofondofap-pealing,asthemodeluponwhichtheywishtoreformtheir moderncourtsof judicature, andwhichthey assumeto havebeeninprinciplethe sameastheEnglishJury.'Butalittle reflectionwillconvinceusthatthis isnotso,andthatthedistinctionaboveinsistedon,isnot amereformalone,but of aradicalandimportantkind.Itinvolves,infact,thequestionofthe possibility of the tri-bunalcontinuingtoexist.Acourtofjusticewherethewhole judicial authorityisvestedinpersonstakenfromtimetotimefromamongstthepeopleatlarge,withnoother qualificationrequiredthanthatofgoodcharacter,canonlybetoleratedina stateofsocietyofthemostsimple kind.As theaffairsof civil life becomemore com-plicated,andlawsmoreintricateandmultiplied,itisplainlyimpossiblethatsuchpersons,bywhatevernametheyarecalled,whether judgesorjurors,can becompe-tenttodeal withlegalquestions.Thelawbecomesasciencewhich requireslaboriousstudy tocomprehendit ;and withoutabodyof mentrainedtothe task,andcapa-bleof applying it, the rightsof all wouldbesetafloat-tossedonawide seaof arbitrary, flunctuating,andcon-tradictorydecisions.Henceinallsuchpopularcourtsas wearedescribing,ithasbeenfoundnecessarytoap-pointjurisconsultstoassist withtheiradvice-,inmattersof law,the uninstructed judges;These at firstacted onlyas assessors,butgraduallyattractedtothemselvesandmonopolizedthewholejudicialfunctionsofthecourt.Therebeingnomachineryforkeeping separatequestionsI SeeRogge,GerichtswesenderGermanen,andStaatsLexicon,vol.VIIart. Jury[C11I.I.]CA USESOFMISTAKENVIEWS.9of lawfromquestionsof fact,the laymembersfelt them-selvesmoreandmoreinadequatetoadjudgethe causesthat camebeforethem.They wereobligedperpetuallyto refertothelegalfunctionarywhopresided,andthemorehisauthority wasenhanced,the morethe poweroftheothermembersof thecourt was weakened,andtheirimportancelessened,untilit wasseenthattheir attend-ancemightwithout sensibleinconveniencebedispensedwithaltogether.And of coursethis change was -favoredby thecrown,as ittherebygainedtheimportantobjectof beingable, by meansof creaturesof its own,to disposeof the livesandliberties of its subjects underthe guiseoflegal forms.HencearoseinEurope,upontheruinsoftheold populartribunals, thesystemof single judgesap-pointedbytheking,anddecidingallmattersof factandlaw,anditbroughtwithit itsodious trainofsecretpro-cess andinquisitorialexaminations.Buttheresult wasinevitable.TheancientcourtsofScandinaviaandGer-manycarriedintheirveryconstitutiontheelementoftheirowndestruction,andthis consistedinthefactthatthe wholejudicial power wasinthehandsof persons whohadnospecialqualificationsfortheir office.FarotherwisehasbeenthecaseinEngland.Herethe jury never usurpedthefunctions ofthe judge.Theywere originallycalledin toaidthe courtwith informationuponquestionsof fact,inorderthatthelawmightbeproperlyapplied;andthishascontinuedtobetheirprovincetothepresentday.Theutilityofsuchanofficeis feltinthemost refinedaswellas inthe simpleststateof jurisprudence.Twelvemenofaverageunder-standingare atleastascompetentnowastheywereinthedays of HenryII.-to determinewhetherthereissuffi-cientevidencetosatisfythemthatamurderhasbeencommitted,andthatthe partychargedwiththecrimeisguilty.Theincreasedtechnicalityofthelawdoesnotaffecttheirfitnesstodecideontheeffectofproofs.10NATUREOF JURYSYSTEM.[HenceitisthattheEnglishjury flourishesstillinallitspristinevigor,whilewhatareimproperlycalledtheoldjuriesofthecontinenthaveeithersunkintodecayorbeentotallyabolished.Anear approximationindeedtotheproperfunctionsof the juryistobefoundintheproceedingsofcriminalstatetrialsamongsttheancientRomans,althoughwemay bequite certain that theEnglish institutionisinnoway copied from them.'Therewe finda presiding judge,whowas eitherthepraetor or a judex questionisspeciallyappointedbyhim,andabodyof judices takenfromaparticularclass,atonetimetheequestrian,andatan-otherthe senatorial,whosedutyit wastodeterminethefactofthe guiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.'Atthecloseoftheevidencethey weresaidtobemissiincon-siliumby thejudge,thatis,told"toconsidertheirver-dict,"and toeach weregiventhreetablets markedrespec-tivelywiththelettersA. for Absolvo,C.forCondemno,andN.L. forNonLiquet, oneof whichhe threw into anurn,andtheresultofthetrialwasdeterminedbythemajorityofthelettersthatappeared.IfthefatalC.prevailed,theproetorpronouncedthesentence,withwhichthejudices didnotinterfere.'Sofarthecourseof procedureseemscloselyanalogoustoourown.ButI This,however,was nottheopinion of Dr. Pettingall,whowroteanin-genioustreatisein1769to showthatthe English jurywas probablyderivedfromtheGreeks andRomanw.2 Itisdifficulttoconveyto anEnglish readerthe preciseimportoffor-eignterms of jurisprudence,without usinganawkward periphrasis-andforthis reason,thatthewordsnominally equivalenthaveacquiredbyusage adifferent senseamongst us.Thus,although itseems quite correctto render"judices"by"judges,"we are soaccustomedtoassociatewiththe nameofthe latterour ownnotionsoftheirpeculiarfunctions,that wearemisledwhenwe apply itto the Romanjudices,who inmany respectscorrespondedmorenearly toour jurymen.SowithregardtotheScabini-Sch6ppen-andUrtheileroftheTeutonicsystem.They werethe "membersofthecourts"whodeterminedbothlawandfact,andgavejudgment-combin-ing thus thefunctions of both judge and jury.3 SeeHeinecc.Antiq. Rom.Syntagma, lib.IV. tit.z8.[CirI.]CAUSESOF MISTAKENVIEWS.iXtheimportantdifferenceisthis.TheRomanjudicesmight,withoutany breachoflegal duty, acquitinspiteof themostconclusiveevidenceofguilt ; fortheywereentitledasrepresentingthesovereignpeopletoexercisetheprerogativeofmercy,andtheirverdictinthat caseimpliedand was equivalentto a pardon.Their functionsthereforewerenot, likethoseofthejurymenoflatertimes, restrictedto the merefinding offacts,but extendedtothe exerciseofa powerwhich,withus, islodgedinthesupremeexecutiveofthestate.Wemayfurtheradd,thatwhenthe pratorannouncedtheverdictof themajority, if itwascondemnoheusedthewords VideturFecisseorNonJureVideturFecisse;ifitwasabsolvo,thewordsNon Videtur Fecisse,orJure VideturFecisse;andperhapsthelastformwasadoptednot onlywhenthe factshadbeenprovedagainsttheaccused,andtherewasa legalexcuseforthedeed,butalso whenthe pr.etersawthattheacquittalwasintendedasanactofmercyand apardon.Ibelieveit tobecapablealmostof demonstration, thattheEnglishjuryisofindigenousgrowth,andwasnotcopiedor borrowedfromany of the tribunals that existedoilthecontinent.Inordertoprovethis,itwillbenecessarytoexaminewhatthosetribunalsinancienttimesreallywere,andshowwhereinthedifferencebe-tweenthemandour ownsystemconsisted;adifference,inmyopinion,ofsoessentialakind, thatwriters nevercouldhavebeen somisledastoconfoundthem,iftheyhadnot occupiedthemselvesratherwith whatthejurynow is,namely, thesole judgeoftheeffectofevidenceproduced,and thearbiterofcompensationforcontractsbrokenandinjuriesreceived-withwhatitoriginallywas, whenitsverdictwasnothingmorethanthecon-jointtestimony of a fixednumber of personsdeposing tofacts withintheirownknowledge.Letusthereforenowturn ourattentiontotheprimm.12NATUROFJURYSYSTEM.['CH. I.valcourtsof justiceonthecontinent,andconsiderfirstthoseofScandinavia,wherethe systeminmanypointsboresuchresemblancestoourown,astohaveinducedsomeauthors to maintainthat the lattermust havebeenderivedfromit.CHAPTERII.THE ANCIENTTRIBUNALSOF SCANDINAVIA.ADANISHjurist,ProfessorReppofCopenhagen,publishedsomeyearsagoa verylearnedtreatiseontheforensicinstitutionsofScandinavia,'whichde-servestobebetter knowninthis country thanit is.Itsuppliedachasminjuridicalliterature,for previouslytoitsappearancethe mostcrudeandimperfectviewswereheldrespectingtheoldNorsetribunals,andBlackstoneandotherwriterswerecontenttotake theirscantyin-formationfromSaxoGrammaticus,Stjernhook,andtheLegesSaxonum,aLatincopyofthelatterhavingbeendiscoveredinthelibrary ofFulda inthemiddleofthe sixteenthcentury.Repp,however, has investigatedthe subjectwithdiligenceandaccuracy.Heexaminedaboutforty ancientcodesof lawin the original languages,andhasthrownmuchlightuponwhat hashithertobeenoneofthedarkestregionsofforensichistory.Evennowitmaybesaidtobestilla terraincognitatotheEnglishlawyer;andyettheresemblancesthatoccurbetween theprimmval courts of justiceoftheNorthmenandourownatthepresentday, aresuchasmightwellprovokecuriosity,eveniftheydidnotsecurea carefulanddiscriminatinginquiry.Repp,indeed,issoim-I HistoricalTreatiseonTrialyJury,Wager ofLaw, andother co.or-dinateforensicinstitutionsformQrlyinuseinScandinaviaandIceland.1832.This workis nowveryscarce,anditwas with greatdifficultythat Iwas able toprocureacopy.14TRIB UNALSOFSCANDIWI VIA.pressedwiththisthathedoesnot hesitatethroughouthisworktospeakoftheusualmodeoftrialamongstthemastrialbyjury;andwithrefereneetotheNor-wegiantribunals,says, thattheanalogyissostrongastoexcludeeverydoubtinregardtothe commonoriginofthelawsrespecting"juries"inbothcountries.Iventure,however,tothinkthatheismistakeninthispoint,andthat his errorhasarisenfrom atwofoldcause-first,fromnotsufficientlydistinguishingthefunctionsof ajudgefromthoseofa jurymaninthe modernsenseoftheword;and,secondly,fromnotknowingor notrememberingthatthejurymenofEnglandwereorigin-allynothingbutwitnesses.Inthecourseofthe presentchapterIshallhaveoccasiontopointthisoutmorefully,whenthedifferentcourtsofScandinaviacomeseparatelyunderourconsideration.Butitmay beherestatedgenerally, thatthroughoutthewholeofthatregionthecharacteristicofthe legaltribunalswas,thattheywerecomposedof twelveper-sons,takenfromtimetotimefromamongstthepeople,whodeterminedquestionsindisputeuponoath,andwhosejudgmentor verdictwasdecidedbythemajority.Withreferencetothismodeoftrial,Reppsaysthatitsantiquity4gannotnow bedetermined.WediscoveritwiththeearliestdawnofNorthernhistory;andevenatthatearlyperiod,asanancientinstitution.Wecantracetheundoubtedexistenceofjuries(inthissense)asfarbackasonethousandyears;beforethatperiodthehistoryofNorthernEuropeiswrappedinCimmeriandarkness,andwecannotexpecttofindauthenticrecordsrespectingjuries,whereallotherrecordsfail.Theuseofthistribunal,how-ever,inScandinaviawasnotsofrequentbeforethebeginningofthetenthcenturyas afterwards.Inearliertimesitwasfrequentlysupersededbytrialbybattle,whichwasdeemedthemosthonorablemodeof settlingrc..I1.]TJIB UNVALSOFSC.4ARDINAVIA.disputes;andas thatbeganto declineontheintroduc-tionofChristianity,itwassucceededbycompurgationandtheordeal,whichlastissaidtohavebeenfirstes-tablishedinconsequence,ofBishopPoppo,intheyear95o, thrustinghishandintoared-hotironglove,anddrawingitoutunscathed,toprovetotheJutlandersthatthereligionwhichhepreachedwasdivine.Thepeopleseeingthis, rushedin crowdstothebaptismalfont,andinfutureadoptedtheordealasameansofappealingtoHeaventodeterminedisputedrights.Themost ancientcodes,however,donot sanctionanyothermodeoftrialthanthatbyswornjudges.Innone-notevenin those of the tenth century-is thetrialby battlementioned,andveryfewalludetothe ordeal.Buttheyaboundwithnoticesofthevariousformsoftrial byjurors;theycontainminuteandelaboratereg-ulationsrespectingitsform,itsapplication,anditscontingencies,andprescribeitsuseinalmosteverypage.'Thejurors,however,oftheoldSaxonswerenothingbut compurgators.This wastheonly mode of trialin useamongstthem.Ifamanwereaccusedofacrime,heeitherpaidthe legalfine,or provedhisinnocencebyhisownoathandthatof acertainnumberoffriendspro-portionedtothenatureoftheoffense.'Butnomen-tionismadeofany'tribunalofswornjuriesorothers,acting inajudicialcapacity.Andthisisanimportantfact,when weconsiderthatfromthem cametheinvadersandoccupantsofBritain,towhom,underthenareteofAnglo-Saxons,wetraceupsomanyofourmostcher-ishedrightsandcustomsasfreemen.I Repp, Histoi.Treatise.2 The Saxonlawsarefullofsuchenactmentsasthefollowing,Deictunobilisxxx.Solid.vel, sinegat,tertiamanujuret.DeVulneribus.16TRIBUIALSOF SCANDINAVIA.SECTIONI.TheNorwegian Laugrettomen.InNorwayitwasdifferent.Therecauseswerede-terminedandoffensestriedby abodyofsworn jurymenin themostancienttimes.WehaveafullaccountoftheconstitutionofthistribunalinthecodeorlawofGulathing,publishedbyKingMagnus.intheyear1274.Butthis didnotestablishthecourt:-itmerelyintro-.ducedsomechangesinaninstitutionwhichhadexistedlongbefore.InNorwaythereweretwosolemnmeet-ing orTHINGSheldperiodically-theoneintheNorth,calledFROSTA-THING,andtheotherintheSouth,calledGULA-THING.ThelatterassembledintheIslandofGuley, wheretherewasasacredplaceinwhichthecourtwasheldintheopenair.Threepersonsholdingdifferentofficesunderthecrownwereuthorizedbylawtonominateacertainnumberofdeputies(calledNefndarmen,or"named-men")fromeachdistrict,whoattendedtheThings.IntheGula-thing therewereonehundredandthirty-nineofthesedeputies;andat theopeningof theassemblyeach of theofficers who returnedthemhadtotakeanoathinthefollowingform:"Icertify, laying myhandontheholybook, and IappealtoGod,that Inominatedsuchmen forGula-thingasIcon-sidered mostable and discreet accordingto my conscience,nordidIthereforereceiveanygiftorfavor."Fromamongstthedeputieswerechosen(butinwhatmanneris leftinuncertainty)thirty-sixmento act as jurors,whotooktheirseatswithinthesacredinclosure,inaspacemarkedoffbystavesandropes,calledLaugretta,andthejurorsthemselveswerecalledLAUGRETTODIEN,'whichliterallymeans,"Law-amendment-men."Thisname seemsat firstsighttoimplythattheyhadlegisla-tiveratherthanjudicialfunctionstoperform,butthisFromLauglexandretta emendatio.[CH.IT.]THNOR WEGIANZA UGRETTOMEBN.17was notso.Inthosesimpletimes,the writtenlawsgen-erally specifiedparticularcases,andthe consequencewas,thatothers wereconstantly occurringwhich thecodehadleftunprovidedfor.Toadjudicateupon'guchcauseswas thereforelikemaking newlaws, andhencethe jurorsderivedtheir name.TheThing waspresidedoverbyaL6gmannorLaw-man,oneofwhosequalificationsfortheofficeinoldtimeswas,that hecouldrecitebyheartthelawsoftheland;buthehadancientlyno voiceinthe decisionof thecausesthat weretried,untilaninno-vationin thisrespectwasintroducedbyKingMagnus.Thefollowingaresomepassagestakenfromhiscode:"TheThing shalllastsolong astheLawmanchooses,andduringsuchtimeas he, withtheconsentofthe jury,deemsnecessaryforadjudging thecauseswhichthenaretobe heard.Theirnumberisthreetimestwelve;theirnominationmustbesomanagedthat somefitmenbechosenfrom everydistrict.Thosewhoarechosentobejurorsshall,beforetheyenterthecourt,swearanoathafter the following form:"'IprotestbeforeGodthatI willgivesucha vote ineverycause,aswellonthe sideofplaintiffasdefendant,asIconsider most justinthesightof God,accordingtolawandmyconscience;andIshallalwaysdothesamewheneverIshall bechosenas juror.'"Thisoatheverymanisto swearbeforeheenters thecourt,thefirst time heservesona jury, butnot asecondtime,thoughhe shouldbechosen.Everymanmustgofasting intocourt,andmakehisappearancetherewhilethesunisin theeast,andremaininthecourttillnoon.Nomanmustbringanydrink intocourt,neitherforsalenor in anyother way.If thosewho areoutsidethesa-credcordsmake there such noise and disturbancethat thejurorsarepreventedfromhearingcases,orthosefrompleading whohaveobtainedleavefromthelawman-and18TRIB UNALSOFSCANDINAVIA.the jurors, theyshallpaya fineof an oresilver,whende-tectedand convicted, having beenpreviously admonished."Thosewhoare chosentoserveasjurorsshalljudgeaccordingtolaw, inallcausesthat ina lawfulmanner andcoufsearehither (thatistoGula-thing)appealed.Butinallcasesthat thecodedoesnotdecide,that istobeconsideredlaw whichallthejurorsagreeupon.Butifthe)disagree,thelawmanprevailswiththosewhoagreewithhim;unlessthekingwiththeadviceofthe mostprudentmen shallotherwisedecide."Previouslyto thepromulgationofthis codetheL6g-mannhadmerelypresidedandactedasthelegaladviserofthejurors.theybeingthejudgestoallintentsandpurposes.Theywerenot,however,boundtoconsulthim,astheywerefullyentitledtodecidecasesaccord-ingtotheirownviewofthelaw.Here,however,hewasinvestedwithamostimportant judicialpower,asintheeventofanydisagreementinopinionamongthejurors,hecould,bygivinghis voteonthatside,makethe judgmentoftheminorityprevail.Duringthesea-sonof theyear alsowvhentheThingwasnotsitting,hewasempoweredtoactassupremejudge,andhearanddecidecausesalone.Now,althoughReppinhislearnedworkconstantlyspeaksoftheproceedingsbeforethistribunalas"trialby jury,"anddrawsattentiontotheanalogybetweenitandtheEnglish jury, wemustnotallowourselvestobedeceivedbythe apparentresemblance.TheLaugretto-menwereinallrespects judges, andnotmerelyjurymen,asthewordisusuallyunderstood.Theydecidedbothlaw andfact,andawardedthesentencewhichthelawprescribed.SofartheyresembledEnglishjuries,thattheywerenotaclassof menholdingany permanentju-dicialoffice,butchosenfromtimetotime,amongstthepeople,to attendthe Thingandadministerjustice.Butthis wasnomorethanhappened,asweshallsee,inthe[CH.II.]THESWEDISHNAMBD.19case oftae Rachinburgenof the Teutonic, and the Ariman-nenoftheL,.-.:nbardnations.Theywereacourtofjudgespopularlyconstituted,buttheirfunctionsweremanifestlydifferentfromthoseofabodyofmensum-monedmerely todeterminefor the courtdisputedques-tionsoffact,bytheirownpreviousknowledgeofthecase,oruponthe evidenceof witnessesbeforethem.TheNorwegianking,Magnus,seemstohavedislikedthepopularelementinthis courtoftheLaugrettomen,andhe gavehiscountenancetotrialby wageroflaworcompurgation,themeaningofwhichwillbehereafterexplained.Thisrenderedtheuseofthecourtlessfrequent,althoughitcontinuedtosubsistinamodi-fiedformformany agesafterwards;andremains of it arediscoveredinthecodeofKing Christain V. of Denmark,whichwasenactedin theyear1683.SECTIONII.TheSwedishNambd.InSwedenasimilartribunalexistedfromtimeim-memorial.IntheancientcodesofthatcountryitismostfrequentlycalledNambd;'andtherewereseveralkindsofit.ThuswefindmentionoftheKonungzNtimbd,or King'sJury, the Lawman's,the Bishop's,andtheHundred'sjury.Thefirstwasacourtof appealfromtheLawman'scourt,asthatwasfromtheHun-dred.Causesandoffensesofeverykindweretriedbeforethesecourts,andwheneveranycaseofimpor-tanceoccurred,whichrequiredjudicialinvestigation,itwastheduty ofthemagistratetosummonanextraor-dinaryThing ormeeting, andnominateaNd.mbdtotakecognizanceofit.ForitwasonlyataThingthattheI Solemnisfuit et adhueestHyperboreisnostrisNembdmusus,cujus ofi-ciumantefuitdefactotantumcognoscere,examinare,statumquecauseex-ponere,uticonstatex jure nostro.Welt,Themis Romano-Svecica,quotedby Repp.N~imbd,issometimesspeltNimnd andNXmd.20TRIBUNALSOFSC.ANDINAVIA.[Ca.courtcouldsitasinNorway.Itwas,infact,inthenatureofacommitteechosenoutofthedeputieswhoattendedthe assembly;andtheThingwasameetingatwhichallthejudicialbusinesswastransactedbytheNambd.IntheLandslaghtheking'sNambdisspokenof asifithadonlycriminaljurisdiction;butaccordingto Repp,civilcausesalsocamebeforeit.Thewordsofthecodeare:"Nowoffensesmayhappentobecom-mittedagainstthekingandt-helawlaiddownintheking'sBALK;thereforethereshallbetwelvemenor-deredineveryLawman'sjurisdiction,agreedupon,chosen,andnominatedby theking andthe nativesofthiscountry.They shallattentivelyanddiligentlyseekoutanddiscover,eachinthatdistrictinwhichheisorderedto maintainjustice,allthosethat,contrarytothislaw,disturbormolestthe people.Andtheyhavetoswearthe followingoath."Thecodethengivestheoath,whichis,thattheywillnot makeanymanguiltywhoisinnocent, noranymaninnocentwhoisguilty,andproceeds:"Whomsoeverthesetwelve,orsevenoftheirnumber, convictedbefore theking himself, orthosewhojudgeunderhiscommissioninacourtofinquisi-tion,orinaLandsthing, lethimbecastandlosehishand,head,life,andgoodsor money,tothekingor theprosecutorandthedistrict,accordingtothenatureoftheoffense.Whomsoevertheydischarge,lethimbedischarged.Againstthisjury(orcourt)thereisnoappeal."Reppsaysthat wearenottosupposefromthe wordsof thelawthatthejurorswereakindofofficers,orcommissionersofthepeace,orevenasortofpublicprosecutors.Theywerejurorstoallintentsandpur-poses,andtothemlay anappealfromtheinferiorcourtsinallcauses.Astothemodeofnominationof jurors,weareleftinsomedoubt.Onecode(theOestgotha-Lagh)says,themagistrateof the districtwastoappointTHESWEDISHWAMB.D.a jury,andboththecontendingpartiesweretobe' pres-entand approveofthosewhowerenominated.Anditsays,"Truemen'aretositontheNambd,andnotpartiesinthecause,northeir friendsorrelatives.Ac-cordingto the Westgotha-Lagh,the king wastoappointaNaimbdfor himself.'Itmustbeadmittedthat betweenthe SwedisliNmb'dandtheEnglishjurythereappearmanycuriouspointsofresemblance-andespeciallyso,ifwecanputim-plicitfaithinthepassagewhichIhavealreadyquotedinanotefromLaurensWelt,whowroteintheyear1687,andwhosaysthat theofficeofthe former, inearlytimes,wasdefactotantumcognoscere.Whenanoffensehadbeencommitted,themagistrateofthedis-trictwas toconvokeaHundreds-thing,andin the wordsofthelaw,"then~imbdshallinvestigateandascertainthetruth inthatcause.Iftherebewitnesses,letthemappearbeforethe jury, andleteachmansweartheoathprescribedtohim;andthemagistrateofthedistrictshalldictatetheoath."'"Ifamanravishesawoman-iscaughtintheact-andtwelvemenprovethefactbytheirevidence,thenthemagistrateshallinstantlyissuecirculars,"andsummona Thing,andsentencehimtobeexecutedbythe swordwithoutdelay."Still,however,Ibelievethatthe naimbdwas the wholecourt,notwithstandingwhatWeltsaysastotheir de-cidingonlyuponfact, andthatinearly timesthe wholeSannindam-fn,whichliterallymeans"truth-speakingmen."Thetermis Icelandic.2 IntheUplandzlaghoccursaprovision which makestwelve mennom.inatethejudges:"Whenjudgesaretobe chosen,themagistrateshallrise andnominate twelvemenfromthehundred:these menshallnominatetwomentobejudges.ThekingshallinvestIhemwithauthoritytojudge.ThesejudgesshallbepresentattheThingeveryThing.day."3.Edz5risBalk ofLandslagh.Repp, 96.'Literally"cutupthe chipofmessage."Repp,1os.22TRIJ UNALSOFSCANIArAVIA.judicialpower,bothofjudgeand jury, waslodgedinitshands.ThisviewisconfirmedbyRepphimself, who.yetspeaksofitalwaysasajury.Hesaysthat"inancientcourtsjurieswereeverything,andjudges werefunctionariesofonlysecondaryimportance,andthatauthorityandpoweroriginallyvestedinthe juries, have,undertheprogressivedevelopmentofmonarchy,been* transferredfromthemtothejudges."Inotherwords,thejudgeswereoriginallymere .presidents-of acourtconsistingofswornmembers,whoexercisedfull judicialpowers.ThelI'atterwerefromtimeto time chosenfromamongstthepeople,andtheirnumberwastwelve;butstilltheywerenot"jurymen"inthe modernsenseofthe term, andaltogether differentfromthe probihominesofthevicinageinEngland,summonedforthe purposeofgivingthe courtthebenefitoftheirtestimonyuponsomedisputedclaimorquestion ofguilt.InFrieslanda single judgenamedasega'pronouncedthesenlenceordoom(tuom).Buthehadfrequentlyassessorstoaidhim,whoseemtohavehad,whentheyattended,avoiceinthejudgment.Theirnumberwasseven,'ortwelve,andhencetheyareoftenspokenofas"thetwelve"'(tolef,zw6lfe),or "thesevenofthetwelve."Sometimesalsotheyarecalled"theking'sorkennen"(witnesses),a factwhich must notbe lost sightof, whenwecometospeakoftheEnglishjuryinitsearliestform.Theyhadtoexecutethe decreeoftheasegaorpresident,anddischargedmanyoftheduties.ofthe modernsheriffand police.IAsega literallymeanslegemdicens, juridicus.-SeeGrimm,DeutscheRechtsAlterthitmer.2 Septemsuffragiisreusvel vincit vel vincitur.Stjernhook,59.3 Theold Norsenameofthistribunalswastolfmanna.domr,"thedoomof twelvemen."A moreexpressivetermfora verdictcouldhardlybe found.[C.II.]TIEDANISHTI.VGMrD, &C.23SECTIONIII.TheDaniskTingrnand,Navninger, andSandemwnd.InDenmarkthe modesof trialbycompurgation(therecalledLov),'andtheordeal,existedinfullvigor;butconcurrentlywiththese,beforethe administrationofthelawfellinto thehandsofregularjudges, causeswerede-cidedby persons whowerecalled either Tingmand,Naev-ninger,orSandemnd,accordingtothenatureofthecourttheyattended.Oftheseletusspeakbrieflyintheir order.-And firstoftheTINGMAND.2Thesewerenotneces-sarily jurors.They werethememberswhoconstitutedthe Thing, of.whom,accordingtothelawofKingWal-demar, sevenmadeaquorum.Buttheydidnotorigi-nally adjudicateuponcauses,exceptwhennootherjur-ors hadbeenappointed-theirproperbusinessbeingtoformtheThing atwhichthepublicaffairsof thedistrictweretransacted-andtheywerethereforemorelikeamunicipalcouncilthanacourtofjustice.Ata laterperiod,however,bythelawof KingErik, aspecial juris-dictionwasgivento them.Nextof theNAEVN,orNJEVNINGER.Theseweretheproper jurors or sworn judges of Denmark, being socalledfromnxvn,"toname."The appellationtherefore signi-fiesthattheywerethe namedornominationmen.Theyexistedinveryancienttimes,andlonganteriortoanyof theextantDanishcodes.'Theirnumberwasorigi-* The literalmeaningofLov in Danishis "law."TingisthesameasThingin theotherScandinavianlanguages,theDanesbeingunabletopronouncetheh.Mendisthe pluralofmand,man.TheTingmanendtherefore arepersons attending or serving at aThingor court.2 Insteadofnmvnweoftenfindthewordspeltnefnd,whichistheIce-landicform.4Saxo Grammaticusindeedsays, Hist.Dan.lib.IX.that RagnerLod.24TRIB UNAZSOSCANDINAVIA.[C11nallytwelve, andthey werechosenby theinhabitantsofthedistrict;althoughinsomecriminalcasestheprose-cutor,andinothersthemagistrates,mightnominatethem.Thelatteralsohadthispowerindefaultofanominationbythecommunity.InJutlandtheywereappointedannually by the inhabitantsfor trying all causeswithintheyear.InScaniafifteenwerenominatedatfirst, as the accusedordefendantwas entitledto challengJiree.Inlatertimesthenumbervariedaccordingto.- ienatureof the offensesthey hadtotry, butstill twelvewasthebasis.on whicheachtribunalwasformed.Al-most allthelawsthatexistrespectingthemhaverefer-encetotheir functionsascriminal judges;andRepp saysthatit isevident the officewasinDenmarkheldtobe anodiousone.Incertaincasesthey were requiredto be re-latedto one of the parties,andwerehencecalledKdns-Navninger,orKions-neffn(kindred-jurors).Thisoc-curredchieflyincausesin whichfamilyquestions hadtobedecided,aswhetherachildhadbeenbornalive?whetherit hadbeenbaptized ? or whether it hadsurvivedits fatherormother?In Denmark acause wasdecided by the majority of thejurors;butthebishop, togetherwiththebesteight menof the district, hadthepowerofconfirmingorrejectingtheirjudgfnent;andanancientcodeprovidesthatifthey areallunanimoustheyshallforfeittheirpropertywhentheyhave givenajudgment contrarytothe opin-ionofthepluralityofthe best menof thedistrict.Incriminalcasesit appearsthatnomancouldcompelanotherto submittoatrialbeforetheNevnunlessheeitherbroughtwitnessesinsupportofhischarge,orbrok, whoreigned overDenmark between750 and790,institutedthe trialbytwelve men.Ut omnis controversiarumlis, semotis actionum instrumentis.nec accusantisimpetitione nec rei defensioneadmissa, DUODECIMPATRUM APPROBATORUMJUDICIO mandaretur, instituit.But accordingto Repp, Profes.sor Ancher, in his Dansk Lovhistorie, has satisfactorily shown that theinstitu.tion isof much older date.II.]THEDANISH1TIVG.ALEND,&C.25swoietoitstruthbyanoathcalledtheasworeneth.Andit wasthe provinceof the juriestodecideuponthe"preliminary proofswhethertheywouldallow thetrialtoproceedornot.In thisproceeding wemaytraceafaintresemblancetoourowngrand-jurysystem,theprincipleinbothbeing thesame,namely,that a manoughtn6ttobeputuponhis trialunless thereis aprima faciecaseofguiltmadeoutagainsthim.TheSANDEMAEND'werepeculiartoJutland.Theywereswornjudges,eightinnumber, twobeingnomi-natedby theking for eachdivisionof the country.Theytookanoath tojudgeon thespotwherethedeedhadbeencommitted,or,if arightoflandwasindispute,thenwheretheproperty issituated.Theyreceivedhalfamarkofsilverforhorse-hirefromtheparty whoem-ployedthem,whatevertheresultoftheirjudgmentmightbe,andtheirverdictwasdeterminedbyama-jority;butsibject,asinthecaseofthenaevn,tobeannulledby thebishopandhiseightcoadjutors.Theoaththey tookwastotheeffectthattheywouldstatenothingbutwhattheyknewtobemostright andtrue(SANDESTE),andthey hadcognizancesofallpersonalinjuriesanddisputesrespecting landandchurch- prop-erty.Itisneedlesstorepeatherewhathasbeenalreadysaidrespectingthe NorwegianandSwedishjuries.TheDanishnmvnandsandemaendwereinprincipleex-actlythesame-namely,inpersonswhomthewholejudicialpower,inthe particularcase,wasvested.Theywerethereforethecourtitself, prohacvice,andmaywithasmuchpropriety becalled judges as jurors.Trueitistheywerenotlearnedjudges-thatis,notmentrainedinthe studyofthelaw, andappointedperma-nentlybythecrown:butinthesimplicityofancientI Fromsand(true),orsande(to prove).The wordistranslatedby theDanish lawyersveridici.26TRIB UNALSOFSCANDINAVIA.timesthiswasnot, necessary,forthelawitselfwastoobrief andplain,andthe causesoftooclearanature,torequireanapprenticeshiptoqualifyamanfortheofficeofajudge.Butbecausethiswasso,andmentakenfromthe ranksofthepeoplewere,fromtimetotime,chosentotry casesanddeterminebothlawandfact,thisdoesnotrenderthemlessjudges,inthe strictsenseof theword,thanthe learnedoccupantsofthejudicialbenchwerewhoafterwardssuppliedtheir place.AlltracesofthissystemhavelongsincevanishedinDenmark.Thenavnarenot summoned,althoughtheinstitutionhasneveryetbeenformallyabolished.Thebusinessofcourtsofjusticethere,exceptinthehighcourtof appealinCopenhagen,iscarriedonwithcloseddoors.Asinglejudgepresides,assistedbylearnedcol-leagues,andnopartoftheproceedingstranspiresuntiltheirconclusion,exceptsuchasthepartiesthemselveschoosetomakepublic.Inthehighcourtwhichisopentothepublic,achiefjusticepresides,withtwelveassessors,andherealonethepleadingsareverbal,eightadvocatesbeingprivilegedto speak init:butthereis nojuryforthemto address.SECTIONIV.TheIcelandic Tdlftar-quidr.Icelandwasancientlydividedintoithirty-nine,prov-inces, orshires, eachofwhichwascalledaGodord,andthreeof thesemade" a Thing, or judicialdistrict,inwhichtheVarthing, orcourtforthatdistrict,wasannuallyIRepp,inhis Treatise,p.132,finds faultwithVogtfor speakingof theSandemndinhisComment.deHomicidioasjudges.Hesays:"He(Vogt)could notconceivethe possibility.of a court withoutthem.The trialby juryin itsancientform-theprimoevalsimplicityofthenortherncourts-wasunintelligibleto him."But surelytheidea of courts ofjusticewith.out judgeswould beanabsurdity.Itmattersnot,as respects the name bywhichthe membersought tobecalled,whether theyarelearnedlawyersornot.Theyare,to allintents and purposes, judges.[CH.I.]THEICELA4N-DICTOLFTAIR-Q UIDR.27held.'Therewere,therefore,thirteenoftheseThings.OvereachshirepresidedamagistratecalledGodi,andthreeofthesenominatedforeachVarthingtwelvejudges,whotriedcausesinthefirstinstance.Fromtheselay anappealtotheFiordungs-d6m,acourtheldaboutMidsummerattheAlthing,'andcomposedofthirty-sixjudgesnominatedbynineGodar(pluralofGodi)foreachquarterofIceland.Fromthisacausemightbeappealedto theFimtar-d6m,the fifthcourt,socalledbecauseit wasthefifthinnumberofthecourtsheld at the Althing.Thiswasthe tribunalof last resort,andthe judges werenominatedbytheGodar, twelveforeachquarteroftheisland,sothattheynominallyamountedtoforty-eight.Thelaw,however,requiredthat theplaintiffshouldrejectsixofthese,andthede-fendantanothersix;sothatthenumberwhoactuallysattotryacausewasreducedtothirty-six,orthreetimestwelve,whichwasconsideredadoublysacrednumber.Butbesidestheseregularcourts,civilandcriminalcases were triedby jurorsinsetsof five,nine, ortwelve,accordingtothenatureofthecase.ThelastwascalledT61ftar-quidr(anominationoftwelve),andwasmuchemployedincasesofdisputebetweentheGodarsandtheirThingmen.InsuchinstancestheGodinominatedeleven,andtheotherpartythetwelfth,who,however, wasobligedtobeoneof theothertwoGodarwhoboreofficeinthat Thing.Butthistribunalwasnotconfinedtosuchcausesalone.Inothercases,elevenof the jurors werealwaysnominatedbytheGodi,and hehimself was thetwelfth.Andthose wereheldtobethebest qualifiedto serve, who were the nearestneigh-borstotheplacewherethecauseof trialarose.Iftheydidnot agree,the judgmentof the majoritywasbinding,1 Ourknowledgeof Icelandi6lawischieflyderivedfromtheGrigiithe Grey-Goosecode.2 Thatis,All-thing,generalcourt.28TRIB UNALSOFSCANDITAVIA.[anditwasdeterminedby lotwhoshouldfirstdeclarehisopinion.NowaccordingtotheexpressionofReppthesedif-ferentbodiesofjurors" wereemployedforjudgingoffacts,"andthismayseemtoimplythat, as inthecaseofEnglishjurors,theirprovincewasconfinedtothis.Butthisdoesnotseemtobehismeaning, forinanotherpartofhiswork,whenspeakingofthelimitednatureoftheLawman'sauthority,hesays:" StillhewasentirelydependentontheThingmen(deputiesofthelegislativeassembly)in his judgments,andonthejuriesasaselectbodyorcommitteeof theThingmen;or,rather,thejudgmentwastheirs, andnot his.SuchwasthecaseinIceland."Ifso,thentheIcelandicjurorshadexactlythe sameofficeasthoseofNorwayorDen-mark;andwhathasbeenalreadysaidofthelatter willequallyapplytothem.Thetruth,however,is,thatquestionsof lawand factinthoseearlyages,weregen-erallysosimpleasto rendera separationbetweenthemunnecessary.Adecisionuponthelatter involvedcer-tainlegalconsequenceswhichweredefiniteandclear,andwhichwereas wellknowntothemembersoftheThingastotheprofessedlawyer.Thejurors,there-fore,indeterminingthefactsofthecase,alsoap-pliedthelaw,and werethusbothjudgeandjurycom-bined.Legalprocess,however,inIcelandwasby nomeansdeficientinintricacy.ItmaybeinterestingtoquoteoneortwocasesfromtheNilsSaga,'to show thatinthoseprimitivetimes,aswellasinourownday, justicewassometimesdefeatedbytechnicalobjections.Aneminentlawyer,named Asgrim,hada suit atthe AlthingagainstUlfUggason,and "therehappenedto AsgrimathingwhichrarelyoccurredinanycauseinwhichheI Repp,Historical Treatise, 167.[CH.II.]THEICELAN.VDZCTOLFTAR-QUI.I.29wasconcerned;- hewasnonsuitedformistakinga pointof law.Hehadnominatedfivejurorsinstead ofnine.Thiswaspleadedindefense."Inanothercase,OddOfeigsonpreparedhiscauseforthe Althing,andsum-monedninejurors outof the district;but it so happenedthatoneofthemdied,and Oddinstantlysummonedanotherinhisplace' outof thedistrict.Againstthis,anobjectionwasmadebytwolawyers,StyrmirandThorarin,whoobserved:"Wedobothofus perceivethat Oddhasheremistakenapointof lawinthepre.liminariesofthis cause,summoningajuroroutofthedistrictinplaceofthedeceased,forthisheoughttohavedoneattheThing;hemustaccordinglybenon-suited."Oneofthemthenwentupto thecourtand.spokeasfollows:"Hereare men ready to defendOspak(thedefendant)inthiscause.Thou(addressingOdd)hast madeamistakeinthepreliminaries,andthoumustbenonsuited;thouhasttochooseoneoftwothings:eithergiveupthe matterentirely,andproceednofur-ther, orwewillputinourplea,andavailourselvesofthe circumstance,that wearea littlemoreversedinthelawthanthouart."Theyatthesametimestatedtohimwhereintheerrorlay,whereat,saystheSaga,Oddwasastonishedandgreatlyvexed,andleftthecourt.Odd's father, Ofeig, was a lawyer of a lessformal school;andhespokeasfollows:"HowdoesithappenthatOspakis not outlawed?Are therenot sufficient groundstocondemnhim?Hashenot,inthefirstplace,com-mittedtheft, andthenslainVali ?"Tothisthecourtanswered:"Allthis isnotdenied;norisitpretendedthatthisissueofthecauseisgroundedinjusticeorequity;but there wasaninformalityinthepreliminariesof theprocess."Ofeig replied,"What informalitycouldtherebeof greatermomentthanthecrimeswhichthismanhas committed?Have younotmadeanoaththat30TRIBULrxsOF SCGANDZNAVIA.[Cyouwillinyourjudgmentsadheretojusticeandtruthandthe laws?But whatcanbemore just andequitable.thanoutlawinganddeprivingofallmeansofsupportinglifea mostheinousculprit,whohasdeservedsucha con-demnation?Astothatpartof youroathbywhichyouareenjoinedtojudgeaccordingtolaw,youought,in-deed,ontheone sideto be mindful of the lawsof process:but,ontheother,notforgetfulofequityandjustice;thisoughttobeyourfirmpurposewhenyoutaketheoath,tocondemnsuchashavedeservedit, topunish-ment,andnottoincur theheavyresponsibilityof suffer-ingthemtoescapewithimpunity."-Such,then,weretheancientcourts ofjusticeinScan-dinavia,andithas,Ithink,inthecourseoftheinquiry,beenprovedthat theywereessentially differentfromourown jury.Butindependentlyof thereasonswhichhavebeenalready urgedagainst the theory, thatit wasderivedfromthem,thefollowingconsiderationseemstobeen-titled togreatweight.IftheoldtribunalsoftheNorthwerethearchetypeof the jury, howcouldwehavefailedtodiscovertheexistenceoftheirleadingandpeculiarfeaturesinthejuridicalsystemoftheAnglo-Saxons?The Jutes and AnglesandSaxonsand Danes,whoatva-rioustimesoverranandoccupiedEngland,camefromthe countrieswhere the institutions of which wehave beenspeakingprevailed,and if theyhadtransplantedthemtothe landof their adoption,wemusthavefoundthemno-ticedamongstthenumerouslawsandcustomsoftheAnglo-Saxonperiod,of whichrecordsare-tillpreserved.Theexistenceofa niimbdwouldhav6 beenas distinctlymarkedinthemasit isintheScandinaviancodes.Itis,inmyopinion,themostimprobableof'theoriestosupposethat courtsconstitutedlikethose ofNorwayandSweden, withtheir twelve jurors andpresidingLaw-man,shouldhavebeenintroducedintoBritainbytheinvadingNorthmensomecenturiesbeforetheNorman[CH.VOTARCBETYPEOFJURY.Conquest,andhavebecomethe commontribunalsof thecountry, withoutleaving any record or traceof their exist-enceuntilthereignofHenryII.Andyetthismusthavebeenthecaseifthehypothesisistrue,thatthejury.wascopiedfromthecourtsofScandinavia.ForIhopeto show thatthe formofour jurytrialwas thenfirstestablished;anditisnotpretendedthattheNormankingsent commissionerslikethe Decemviritocollect thelawsandcustomsoftheNorth,beforeheinstitutedtheGrandAssize.Ifthat modeof trial was takenfromthosecountries,itmusthavegainedfootinghereatthetimewhenthemigratinghostswholandedonourshoresre-tained the liveliest recollectionof the usages of the nationsof whichthey had so recently formed a part.If an identity.betweentheinstitutionsissupposedtobeprovcolbytheirresemblance, letthose who maintainthat theoryex-plainwhy, themoreweexaminetheperiodsfollowingtheSaxonandDanishinmigrationsintoGreatBritain,themorecertainlywecanprovethatthis modeoftrialhadthenno existence.'I The most remarkrableapprcximation to our owninstitution seemsto haveexistedat anearly periodin Russiaforthe trial ofcriminal cases.In theFrench translationof M.Karamsin's Histoirede Russie,we findthe follow-ing :Le plusancien codedesloisrussesportequedouzecitoyensasser-mentis discutent suivantleur conscienceles chargesquipsent sur un accusi,et laissentauxjugesle droitdedeterminer lapeine.CHAPTERIII.LEGC.ALTRIBUNALSOFANCIENTGERMANY.SECTIONf.Constitution ofthe oldGermanCourts ofYustice.THEearliestcourtsofthevariousGermantribeswerevery muchalike.'The basis ofthe Teutonicpolity, andwhatmaybecalledtheunitofthesystem,wasthedivisionofthecountryintodistricts,calledmarken,severalofwhichmadeupagau.Atthe head.ofeachgauwasaterritoriallord,wholedforththemilitaryarrayinwar,andsat aspresidentof thecourtsofjusticewithinhisjurisdiction.Thus, solate astheyear1299theArchbishopofMayencepresidedoverthelandgerichtofhisprovince.But asthe increasingfrecjuencyandnumberofthetribunalsrendereditim-possibleforthesuzeraintoattendallinperson,presi-dentswereappointed,whowereatfirstchosenby thecommunityatlarge,'butafterwardsnominatedbytheking,untilinmanyinstances theofficebecame a kindofhereditaryright.ThenamewefindusuallyappliedtoIFortheacccountheregivenofthe oldGermantribunals, myauthori-tiesarechieflySavigny'sGeschichtedeskomischenRechts,Rogge'sGerichtswesenderGermanen,andGrimm's DeutscheRechtsAlterthimer.Thelatter workisa mineofantiquarian legallore.2Eliguntur iniisdemconciliisetprincipes,qui jura per pagosvicosquereddunt.Tac. Germ.c.r2.OLDGERAMTNCaURTS.thesepersonsisgrafioorgraf,forwhichtheLatinequivalentcomes,frequentlyoccurs:otherappellations,suchasvogt,tunginus,missusregis,missuscomitis, arealsoused;butat a laterperiodtheseweresupersededbythemoregeneralwordrichter.Themeetingsatwhichjudicialas wellasother pro-Lceedingstookplacewereoftwokinds,called"unbid-den"(ungebotene),and"bidden"(gebotene);or, as weshouldsay, ordinaryandextraordinary.Theordinarywereheldatstatedtimes, once,twice,orthriceeveryyear, accordingastheusagevariedindifferentplaces.Thiswasthe"mallumlegitimum"of theFranksandthegemotoftheAnglo-Saxons.Nonoticewasre-quiredinorderthatthefreemenofthedistrictmightattend,forthedayordaysofmeetingwereknowntoall;andifthey didnotappear,theywereliabletoafine.Theextraordinary,however,wereonlysum-monedwhenthere wassome specialbusinesstobetrans-acted;andpreviousnoticewasgivenofthetimeandplaceofmeeting.Here,too,it seemsthattheabsen.tees werefined.'Thepresiding"comes "or"missus"bad,however,novoiceinthedecision;andhisduties,likethoseofthearchonat AthensandprmtoratRome,weremerelyministerial.Themembersofthecourt(urtheileroisch5ffen)hadtherighttodetermineallquestionsof lawandfact;and,withtheassistanceofwitnessesintheearlyages,n6doubtdidso.ButasthelawbecameIThiswordhasbeenusually derivedfromgrau,canus,asthoughtheideaof ageorseniority wereimplied.ButGrimm suggeststhe derivationravotignum(rafter),doms.Hencegfravo,contubernalis,comes.Gerefa,from whichwehavescir-gerefa,or sheriffhas the samerootas graf.2 Grimm,Dents,RechtsAlterthitmer.Thesemeetingsorcourtshadvariousnames,derived(i)from thedistrict,or(2)fromthe presidingoffi-cer, or(3)frointhepersonswhoattendedthem.Thuswefindthemcalled(1)landgericht,gaugericht,xnarkgericht,stadtgentht,(2)grafengericht,vogtsgericht,probstgericht,(3)rittergericht,lehengericht.manngericht..2CH. Ill.]34TRIBUNALSOFANCIENTGERMANY.[CH.moretechnical,andthetransactionsofmankindmorecomplex,thewantofassistancefromthose whohadap-pliedthemselvestolegalstudieswouldsoonbefeltAccordinglywefindmentionof suchpersonsunderthenameofSachibarone,whoseofficeitwastoactinthecapacityoflegalassessorsoradviserstotheuninstruct-edmembersofthecourt.Butwhen,insteadofacer-tainnumberoffreemen,takehindiscriminately,se-lectedpersonswere,asweshallpresentlynotice.appointedjudges, whoseoffice requiredthemto acquaintthemselveswiththe law,theSachibarowassupersededinhisfunctions,andthenamealmostentirelydisap-noearsThepresidingofficerhelda staffor wandinhishand,andsatonachair(stuhl) whichwasfrequently of stone :whiletheothermembersof the courtwereseatedbesideor beneathhimona bench.2These,whowereinrealitythejudges, consistedorigin-,ally, aswehaveseen,ofallthefreemenof thecommun-ity,whoseduty itwasto attendthemeeting ;'andasitwasnecessarythateverysentence,ifnotunanimous,shouldbedeterminedbyamajority,threefreemenatleastmustbe presenttoconstitute thecourt.Itwasinorderto obviatetheoccurrenceof either oneof twoop-positeevils, namely theabsence of asufficient number,or1ThisistheviewwhichGrimmtakesofthemeaningofSachibaro.Deuts.R.Alter.7S3.One ofthe oldBavarian.laws wasthefollowino:Comesverosecumhaheatjudicem,quiibiconstitutusestjudicare,etlib-rumlegis,utsemperrectumjudicium judicct.Roggethinksthatthisap-pointmentof ajudexwas peculiartotheBavariansandAlamanni.SeehisGerichtswesenGerm.ch.iii.. 14.Itseemsthatthepresidentofthe tribunal satcross-legged,to signifytherepose and gravitypropertohis office.Anoldlaw prescribedthatheshouldsit"likea grim-lookinglion,withtherightfoot crosseiovertheleft."SeeGrimm.D.R.A.763.8Hencetheywerecalleddingpflichtigeanddingmgnner,i.e. menwhosedutyitwastoattendthedingorcourt.ItdeservesnoticethattheLatinequivalentfor thesewordsusedbytheoldwriters,isveridici.OLDGERMANCO UIRTS.the confluxoftr,omanyatthesemeetings,thata newcustomwasintroduced.The president,or perhapsin someinstancesthepartiesthemselves,chosebeforehandcertainfreemen,whowererequiredtoforma courtforthehearingof theparticularcase.Theirnumbervaried,butwasgenerallyseven,andnever,forthereasonbeforegiven,lessthanthree.The nameby whichthosewhowerethusnominatedtoactinajudicialcapacitywereknownamongstthe oldFrankswasRachinburgen.'Savignyappliesthistermto all thefreemen,who,in contradistinctionto the numer-ous body ofthe unfree(unfreien),hadthefullcivicfran-chise;butRoggeandGrimmthinkit wasrestrictedtothosewhowerefromtimetotimechosentodischargejudicialfunctions,andwhodidnotforma separateclassinthecommunity,anymorethanourownjurymen.Perhaps,however,thereisnogreatdifferencebetweenthese twoviews;foras allthefreemenwere competenttofilltheofficeof judges,theywereallinonesenseRach-inburgen,or,at allevents,mightatanytimebecomesoby attending thecourts.AmongsttheLombardsthe correspondingnamewasArimannen;'and theyarebothrenderedinoldcharter.IOneof two derivationshasusuallybeen givenofthe firsttwosyllablesof thisword: (i)fromracha, i.e. sache,causa,whencecomesrecht:(2)fromrek orreiks,nobilis, implyingthefreemembersofthecommunity,whichSavignyprefers.Grimm, however,rejects boththese,and derivesthewordfromthe Gothicragin,whichhe saysisemployedmerelytostrengthentheidea of the wordwithwhichit iscompounded.Hethinks tlierefore,thatthetrue interpretationof rachinburgenmustbefound inthemeaningofburgen,whichhederiveseitherfrom burg,oppidum.sothat arachinburgwouldbecivisoptimojure;or fromburg.vadimonium,withreferencetothe systemofmutualsuretishipthatprevailedamongsttheGermansandAnglo-Saxons,as willbe afterwardsexplained.2Thus wefind inagrantoftheEmperorHenryIV. (A.D. 1084)thewordsdonamusinsurper...monasterioliberoshominesquosvulgoAri-mnannosvocant habitantesincastelloS.Viti.SavignyGesch.i.c..4.Thiswriter inclines tothederivationofArimannusfromEhre, signifyingnothonor inthe restrictedsenseofnobility,butfullrights ofcitizenship,thezii..6TRIB UAALSOFANCIENTGERMANY.[OHandlegaldocumentsbytheLatinequivalentof bonihomines,"goodmenandtrue."Beforegivingjudgment,themembersofthecourtretiredfromthepresenceof the presidingofficer inordertoconsidertheirdecision,or verdict,asitmaybenotimproperlycalled.'Such,then, were the Germaniccourts of justice intheirearliestform.Theywerecomposedofthefreemenofthedistrict,andpresidedoverbytheGraf, orCount.Allhada righttoattendandtakepartinthe judgment,whichtherefore,as wemaywellsuppose,wassometimesofatumultuouscharacter.'Atalaterperioditwasdifferent,andwefind judgesduly appointedto the office,andcalledScabini,'who,however,didnotatfirstex-cludethefreemen,butseemtohavesat with themasjointmembersofthecourt.Thechiefdifferencebe-tweenthemwas,thatitwasoptionaltothelattertoat-tendor not,astheypleased,exceptat thestatedyearlymeetings,whiletheScabiniwereobligedtosit byvirtueoftheiroffice.Thischangeseemstohavebeenintro-ducedbyoraboutthetimeofCharlemagne;forthenamedoesnotoccurinanydocumentsofanearliercaput of theRomans.ThewordwouldthushavethesamemeaningasRachinburgen,accordingtothe etymologyof thelatter, whichSavigny pre-fers.Andcertainlytheexampleswhichheadducesstronglybear outthecorrectnessof his view,that both wordswere appliedtothe classof freemengenerally.I The existenceof this practice,socuriously similarto thatof a mddernjury, isestablishedbyGrimm,whoquotesfromoldannalsandrecordsagreatvariety of instances.D.R.A.786.Of thiswehave aninstanceintheearly partof theseventhcentury:Comesquidamex genereFrancorumcognomineDotto,congregatSnonminima multitudineFrancorum,inurbeTorndeo, uteratilli injunctumaddirimendasresedratactiones.Tune ....prmsentatusestquidamreus,quemomnisturbaacclamabatdignumessemorte.Bouquet,3,533,citedbySavigny,I.C. 4, art.2.3 ScabinusisderivedbyGrimmfromscapan," toorderordecree.'TheItalianscabino,Spanishesclavin,andFrenchechevin,areall thesameword.OLDG.ERMANCO UR TS.date,'buttheyarefrequentlyusedinthecapitulariesofthatmonarch.Theywerechosenbythepresiding"comes,"or"missus,"withtheassentofthepeoplegenerally:andthenumberrequiredtoforma courtwasseven:"utnullusadplacitumbanniatur(summoned)...exceptisscabineisseptemnquiadomniap-lacitaprxessedebent;"'butonsolemnandimportantoccasionstheywereincreasedto twelve."Grimmremarks that there is anunmistakablerelationbetweenthesetwonumberssoap-plied-foras sevenisthe smallestmajoritythat canexistamongsttwelve,it wasthereforenecessarythat sevenatleast shouldbeagreed,toenablethecourttopasssen-tence.'Butto entitlethis argument toweight,itoughtfirsttobeshown,thatinordertopronounceavalidjudgment, theseven,inordinarycases,wererequiredtobeunanimous.Otherwisethereseemsnoreasonwhyanyothernumbergreaterthensevenshouldnothaveansweredthe purposeequallywell.Eightor tenadmitof majoritiesconsistingoffiveor six,which wouldbeasefficientasoneofseven,unlessitwereafundamentalrulethatsevenatleastmust,inallcases,concurinadecision.This,however,Grimmhasnotshown,nordoIbelieveit tohavebeenthe fact.Whilenoticingthemanypointsof resemblancebe-tweentheScabini,or judgesoftheTeutoniccourts, andtheEnglishjury, Savignymentionsoneimportantdif-ference,that theformerdecidedallquestionsoflawandfactalike;whereasthelatterarerestrictedwhollytothe findingoffacts,andthe lawapplicabletothe caseistSavigny,Ib.'Utmissinostri, ubicunquemalos scabineosinveniunt, ejiciant, et totiuspopuli concensuinlocoeorum bonoseligant,etcumelectifuerint, jurarefaciant, ut saienterinjuste judicarenon debeant.Capit. ann.8293 Capit.ann. 803.4Capit. ann.89.5Deuts.Rechts.Alter.777.Sometimes,butnotoften,wefindthonumber ofthe court consistingof a multipleof sevenor twelve.11.]38TRIBUNAALSOF ANCIENTGERMANY.[CH.laiddownbythepresidingjudge.'Heobservesthatthisisanalogous totheproceedingsofthe Romantribu-nals,wherethe prmtordirectedthe judicesas to thelaw;andhedeclareshimselfunabletoaccountforanagree-mentbetweenthetwosystemsinapracticeinwhichtheybothdifferedfromthecustomoftheTeutoniccourts,with whichthe juryhas somuchincommon.But whenwe cometoconsiderwhatweretheoriginalandproperfunctionsoftheEnglishJury, weshallseethat thedifficultyfeltby Savignyvanishesatonce.Itneverwasintendedthat they should determineanyques-tionsof law.Theyhadinfactnojudicialdutytoper-form.Theyweresummonedtoinformthecourt,whichwasdistinctfromthemselves,ofcertainfactsofwhichtheyhadpeculiarmeans of knowledge,andthentheirof-ficewasatanend.TheScabini,onthecontrary,werebothcourtandjury.Theydeterminedthequestionofinnocenceorguilt, orwhateverfactmightbeindispute,andthey alsoawarded andpronouncedthe judgment.But, moreover,Savignyisnotquitecorrectinsayinginthissense,thatamongsttheRomansthequestionoflawwasfor thepraetor,andthatof factforthejudices.Incivilcausesthepartieswentbeforetheprxtor, whoseemstohavesettledwhatthelaw was,supposingthefactsproved,andhethenappointedajudextotry thecase,whomight,if hethoughtfit,call inas assessorsper-sonslearnedinthelawtoassisthimwiththeir advice;andasthey satnot asmagistratesonthe tribunal,but onbenches,asit wereadpedes judicis,theywerecalledJu-dicisPedanei.ThisisthemeaningofthepassageinIGesch.Rom.Rechts,r.C.4,art.2,DieSchtffen.Bernardi,inhisOriginede la LegislationFrancaise,hasconfoundedthe distinction betweenthe Scabiniandthe Rachinburgen,and imaginesthat the bonihomines werepersonschosentorepresentthewholecommunityatatrial,andwerethejudgesof fact,whilethe Scabini werejudgesoflaw.Ifthiswereso,thetribunalwould closelyresemblethatof the modem jury.ButSavignyhasciealyshownthatthisviewis erroneous.III.] OLDGERMANCOURTS.AulusGellius:Finally,topreventalldangerofdeter-miningquestionsoflawbypersonsnotlearnedinthelaw,tfiey usedto appointone ormoreassessors,learnedin thelaw,by whoseadvicethey (the judges)wereboundtodetermineall questions of law;'whichMr.Starkie,bymistake,applies tothe judicespresidedoverby apraetoratthepubliccriminaltrials,whodo,asbeforenoticed,present some curiousfeatures of resemblancetoa modernjury.The nearestapproachamong ourselvestosuchatribu-nalas theScabini,istheHouseof Lords whenit sitsastheHighCourtofParliamenttotry apeer,or, inthecaseofanimpeachment,acommoner;onwhichocca-sionstheLordHighStewardactsaspresident,butthepeers are judgesbothoflawandfact.This,however,isonly duringthe sitting ofparliament;forwhensuchatrialtakesplaceduringtherecess,itisthecourt oftheLordHighSteward,to whichthepeersaresummoned,I Deniqueut tantominusessetpericuline imperitijudicarent,solebantaliquandiisunus anutpluresjudiciisociijurisperitiadjungi,quorumcon.silioomniaagerent.Noct.Att. xii.13.See Heinecc.Antiq. Rom.Syntag.iv. tit.5, 17.2 InhisLawofEvidence,I5,n (d),Mr. Starkiesays:"Theprincipaland characteristiccircumstancein whichthe trialby a Romandifferedfromthatof a modemjury,consistedinthis, that intheformer case,neitherthepretor, nor anyotherofficer distinctfrom the jury, presidedoverthetrial todetermineastothecompetencyof witnesses,theadmissibility ofevidence,andtoexpoundthe law asconnectingthefacts withtheallegationstobeprovedonthe record;but in ordertoremedythedeficiency,theyresortedto thisexpedient:the jury generallyconsistedof oneormorelawyers,andthusthey derivedthat knowledgeof lawfromtheirownmemberswhich wasnecessaryto enablethemto rejectinadmissibleevidence, andtogive acor-rectverdictas compoundedboth of lawand fact."The expressions"jury"and"verdict,"here usedbyMr.Starkie,tendonlytomislead.He mis-takesthecallingin of assessorsby a judgeincivilcauses,fortheadditionof lawyersto thepanelofjudices,whoin criminaltrials atRomedeterminedthe questionofguiltor innocence,and whocwre,inmany respects,analo-goustomodemjurymen;butweneverfindanyjurisperitiaddedtothem.40TRIBUNALSOF ANCIENTGERMANY.[CH.andheisthen the sole judge of matters of law, while theyaretriersof mattersof fact.'SECTIONII.TheMode of Proof inthe AncientCourtsof Germany.Wehavenexttoconsiderthe modeof proof by whichquestionsweredecidedamongsttheancientGermans;andtheinquirydeservesparticularattentionfromtheimportantbearing whichit hasupon theoriginof trial byjury amongstourselves,as itwillbehereafterexplained.Butsomuchasrelatestotheuseofcompurgationasameansof determiningquestionsofinnocenceor guilt,aswellasotherdisputes,maybeconvenientlydeferredun-til wespeak of thejudicialsystemoftheAnglo-Saxons,of which it wasa prominentfeature.Here itwill besuf-ficientto noticethecharacterandfunctionsofwitnesses,notcalledlikethecompurgatorsmerelytoasserttheirbeliefinthe credibilityof a party,buttodeposetocer-tainfacts supposed tobewithin theirowncognizance.:Butitwillbenecessary torememberthat our attentionisheredirectedtoastateofsociety entirelydifferentfromanywhichnowexistsinEurope;andwemusten-deavor,asfaras possible,todivest ourselvesof theideasandprejudicesderivedfrommodernsystemsofjudica-ture.Oneof themost striking characteristicsof theold-entimewas the unboundedconfidence placedintheoathorwordof afreemanlegally competentasa witness.Itwasingeneralconclusiveofamatterindispute,andwhencalledforindueform,had alltheeffectofa deci-sionbyacourtofjustice.2 Butallfreemenwere11otequallycompetenttogiveevidenceinallcases.Onlythosewhowereassociatedasinhabitantsofthesamemark(markgenossen)couldbewitnessesfororagainstSee i9,StateTrials, 962--964.* SeeRogge,Gerichtsw.derGerm.93-131.Grimm.,Deuti.Rechts.Alter.OLDGEBRMZNCO URTS.eachother.Andof these thecompetencyvaried accord-ing tothe subject-matterof theirtestimony.Withre-specttosuch thingsas mightwellbepresumedto beofpublicnotoriety withinthedistrict,suchastherighttothe possessionof land,as provedbyactsof ownership,oroffensesagainstthe peace of the community, every oneofthemarkgenossenwhopossessedacertainamountofpropertymightgiveevidence,althoughhehadnot act-uallyseenwhathadoccurred.'Nearnessofneighbor-hoodinsuch cases was deemedsufficienttoqualifya manforbeing awitness,forhe couldhardlyinthosetimesbeignorantofmattersofcommonreputearoundhim.Hereweseewhatcreditwasgiventothetestimonyofthe vicinage;aprinciplewhichhadsuchanimportantinfluenceuponourownearly jurisprudence.Butbesidescircumstancesandeventsofgeneralinter-estto thecommunity,to provewhichallthefreemem-berswerecompetentwitnesses,therewere,ofcourseothersof a private naturetowhichthe same presumptionof public knowledgecouldnot apply.Toattestthese,therefore,theattendanceofpersonswasrequiredwhomightbeable,whencalleduponafterwards,todeclarewhathadtakenplaceintheir presence.Thus, wheretherightof successioninafathertoawife'spropertyde-pendedonthe birthof a living child, witnesses weresum.monedtobepresentatthelying-in-acustomwhichstillexistsinthiscountry whenchildrenareborntothereigningsovereign.Soalso in thecaseof enteringuponaninheritance(or"beingservedheir,"accordingto theexpressionoftheScotchlaw),thealienationoflands,Ille homoquihoctestificarevoluerit,commarchanusejus debetesse,etdebet habaresexsolidorum pecuniamet similem agrum.Leg. Bainv. T. s6,C. 1, 2.San6si eos(caballos)in re suadamnumsibifacientesinveneritclauseritque. vicinissuiset consortibuscontestetur.Leg.Burg.T. 49,c.3.-boereditasmaternaad pattern ejuspertineat, eotamen sitesteshabetpater ejusquodvidissent iliuminfantemoculosaperire utpotuissetculmcadomusvidereet quatuorparietes.Leg.Alam.T. 92.ilI.]42T'RIB UNALSOFANCIENTOERMANY[C-themanumissionofaserf,thebuyingandsellingofchattels,the paymentofdebts, andcontractsgenerally.Andwhere homicidewascommitted,eveninself-defenseorfromanyotherjustifiablecause, itwasnecessaryfortheslayerimmediatelytomakeknownwhathadhap.pened,tothenearestpersonshecouldfind,thattheirtestimonyastohisconductanddemeanorimmediatelyaftertheeventmightexoneratehimfromguilt.Com-monprudence,indeed, woulddictatetoeverymanthesamecourseat the presentday:Among theancientGermansthe credibilityof allcom-petentwitnesseswasthesame.Theirtestimonywasdeemedofequalweight, norwasthecharacterofthewitnesstakenintoaccount.Indeed, withon6 exception,nokindofcrimedisqualifiedhimoraffectedhislegalcredit.Theoffensesofwhichsocietythentookcogni-zancewerealmostentirely thoseofviolenceagainstper-sonsorproperty.Butthesecouldbeallatonedforbythepaymentofapecuniarycompensationorfine,andwhenthiswassatisfiedthere wasanend ofthematter,andnostainresteduponthecharacteroftheoffender.Theexceptionto whichIalludewasthecrimeof havingbornefalse witness:a personguiltyof this wasincapableof givingtestimony again.?Atalaterperiod,however,asin thetimeof Charlemagne,wefinditlaiddownthatawitnessoughtto beonecuiille, contraquemtestimo-niaredebet,nullumcrimenpossit indicere.'Except amongsttheLombards,allevidencewasgivenuponoath,andasanaturalconsequencefromwhathasbeenalreadysaid, it hadthe same effectas a judgment ofthe court.It was, in fact, the judgment pronounced by themouthsof witnesses;for,inmostcases,allthatwasre-quiredwastoascertainthetruthof the matter in dispute3Leg. Rothar. c.x6.Leg.Bainv. T.8,e.5.2SeeRogge, Greichts.Germ.3Capit.lib.iii.c.32.OLDGERMANCOUR TS.-andthistheirtestimonydeclared.Hence,noformaljudgment onthe part of the members of the court (sch6ffen)wasrequired,andwherethelawhadclearlyprescribedwhatconsequencesweretoflow fromprovedor admittedfacts,theirofficewassuperfluous.Thefactswerefoundby thewitnesses,andtheirevidencewasequivalenttoajudicialdecisionofthequestion.'Hence,also,wefindthattheirnumber,likethatof thejudges,wasusuallyseven,2 andat asomewhatlaterperiodthey arespokenof asassociatedwiththepresidingmissus,orcomes,inthe trial of causes;ut adjutoresComitum sint ad justiciasfaciendasAndevenwhenitbecamecustomaryforadefendantto adduce counter evidenceonhis part, sothattherearoseaconflictof testimony,this wasnotweighedand determinedby thecourt, butthecredibilityof eitherside wasdecidedbythecombat,asanappealtothe Godof Truth.Nothingcanmoreclearly provethattheevi-dencewasregardedinthenatureof averdictorjudg-ment, forusually the courtitself, in convictinganoffend-er, did no more thansentencehimto undergotheordeal,.vhichgavehimstillachance ofescape; andamongstthe oldSaxonsofthecontinentthejudges(innumberseven)might'themselvesbechallengedto fightbytheculprit andsix of his friends.'Moreover,the witnessesnotonly deposedtofacts,butalsogaveevidencewithrespecttovalue,whereanin-jury topropertyhadbeencommitted,orpaymentof adebthadbeenwithheld.Inotherwords,theydeter-minedthe amount of damages.For theirtestimonywasconclusive,andthe courtdidnotattempt tointerfere.'IThis explainswhatMalblaucsays in hisDoctrinade Jurejurando:Idenimobservavi,olim pmesertiminte Germanosdifficulterjudicess.arbitrosa testibusdiscernipotuisse.Hence,the witnesses weresaidtoadjudicate,asin anexamplefrom an old recordquoted byGrimm, testes qui, prsentesfuerunt,et hanccausamdijudicaverunt.Deuts.R. Alter.859.2 Grimm,ubi supra.3 Capit. Louis,ann.8r2.4Sachsenspiegel,ii. art.12.Rogge,Gerichtsw.Germ.89.5 Rogge,Gerichtsw.Germ.c. iv. 28.III.]44TRIB UNALSOF ANCIBNTGBRMANY.[OH.III.Nowwhenwecometoconsiderthe earliestconstitu-tionof the jury, weshall seesomestrikingpointsofre-semblance betweenits functions andthose of the oldGer-man witnesses.Indeedthey sofar coincidedthat it isre-markablethatinthiscountryalone,thatinstitutionwasdevelopedfroma stateof thingssonearly similar.Whyit shouldhavebeenunknownonthecontinent,andyethaveflourishedwithsomuchvigorinEngland, is a prob-lemof whichthe solution,Ibelieve,is tobe foundin thefactoftheinstitutioninGermanyoftheScabiniunderCharlemagne.These werethe sole judgesof factas wellaslaw.Theyabsorbedthe wholejudicialfunctionsofthecourt,andthereforetherewasnoroomforanotherbodydistinctfromthem,whoseofficeshouldbeconclu-sivelytodeterminequestionsoffactforthem.Andwhentheprinciplewasonceestablishedof thusmakingthecourtconsistentirelyofalimitednumberofdulyqualifiedjudges,thetransitiontowhichIhavebeforeadvertedtosingle judges,nominatedby anddependentonthecrown,whodecidedwithouttheinterventionof ajury, wasa naturalandalmostnecessaryconsequence.CHAPTERIV.THEJUDICIALSYSTEMOF'THEANGLO-SAXONS.SECTIONI.Trial byYuryunknowntotheAnglo-Saxons.J Nhisadmirableeditionof Blackstone's"Commenta-Jries,"'Mr.SergeantStephensap*s,that"WhentheAnglo-Saxonmemorialsarecarefullyscrutinized,.wefindthemtobe suchasevento justifya doubtwhethertrial byjury(inanysenseapproachingtoou"use.tof.that term)didactuallyexistamongus atanytime'be-"forethe NormanConquest."This statement is, I belieye,shortofthe truth.Itmaybeconfidentlyassertedthattrialbyjury wasunknown:toour Anglo-Saxonances-tors;andthe ideaofitsexistenceintheirlegalsystemhasarisenfroma wantofattentiontotheradicaldis-tinctionbetweenthemembersorjudgescomposingacourt,andabodyofmenapartfromthatcourt,butsummonedtoattenditinordertodetermineconclu-sivelythefactsofthe caseindispute.Thisistheprin-cipleonwhichisfoundedtheinterventionofajury;and notracewhatevercanbefoundofsuchaninstitu-tion inAnglo-Saxon times.'IVol. in. 588,n. (z).2 In"TheChronotype-anAmericanMemorialof Personsand Events"-NewYork,April, 1873.Vol.x. NO. 4-we find on page17, the following-"In Woodward's'Historyof Wales fromthe Earliest Times,'accounts aregiven of severalsovereignWelsh princesand kingsofthe name ofMorgan46JUDICIAL SYSTEMOF ANGLO-SAXONS.[CH.Ifithadexisted,itisutterly inconceivablethatdis-tinctmentionofit shouldnotfrequentlyhaveoccurredinthebodyofAnglo-Saxonlawsandcontemporarychronicleswhichwepossess,extendingfromthetimeofEthelbert(A.D.568-616)totheNormanConquest.Thosewhohavefanciedthattheydiscoverindicationsofitsexistenceduringthat, periodhavebeenmisledbyfalseanalogies,andinattentiontothedistinguishingfeaturesofthejurytrialwhichhavebeenpreviouslypointedout.While,however,weassertthat itwasun-knowninSaxontimes,itisneverthelesstruethatwicanrecognizethetracesofasystemwhichpavedthewayforits introduction,andrenderedits adoptionatalaterperiodneitherunlikelynorabrupt.Thisis,in-deed,justwhatwemightexpect.Ourearly jurispru-warlike,and whoconstitutedthemselves formidablebarriersagainstAnglo-Saxondominationandencroachment,someofthemlivingasfarbackasA.D.4oo.Toone of theseancientkings-Morganof Gla-Morgan-aboutA.D.725, is accreditedthe inventionand adoptionof the Trial by Jury, whichhe called'theApostolicLaw.''For,'quoth our regaland pious namesake,'asChristandhistwelveApostleswerefinallytojudgetheworld, sohumantribunalsshouldbecomposedof the kingandtwelvewisemen!Andthis,it seems, wasacenturyandahalf priorto the reignof Alfredthe'Great,to whomisgenerallyaccreditedthe honor of originating thisform oftrial."Wefindother referenceto Woodward'sHistory, but have beenunabletoprocurea copyofthe bookitself.The Morganof Gla.Morganhere referredto, wasanearly chieforking of Wales,whotook uparmsagainstEdwardII., wholaid heavyimposts uponthe Welshto supporthis war inFrance.He isreferredto as prominent in the records of that country in a black-lettervolumeinthe Astor Library,NewYork."Thehistorieof Cambria,nowcalled Wales,writtenin theBritish languageabovetwo hundredyearspast:translatediutoEngliih by H.Floyd,gentleman:corrected, augmented, andcontinuedoutofrecordsandbestapprovedauthors,byDanielPowellDoctorin Divinitie.Imprintedat London byRafeNewberieandHenrieDenhamcurnpriveligioRegizemagistratis:1584,pp.7,79,122,38o,382.HisprovinceofGla-MorganwascapturedinA.D.9B7,byMeredyth,anotherWelshking, anddespoiled,"sothatnoplacewasfreefromswordandfire "-Id. And seealso Warrington's"Historyof Wales,P.337.TRIALBYJUR YUzVX.NXOW.'.dencewastooimperfectnottobeinatransitionarystate.Itshistoryisanalogoustothatofour constitti..tionwhichhasbeenformedbytheslowgrowthof ages,andistheresultofexperienceratherthanthe offspringoftheory.But ifthis betrueof our political,it isstillmoresoofourjudicial,institutions.Theprejudiceagainstanysuddenchangeinthemisgreat.Theyareinterwovenwiththeusagesandcustomsofthe people,whose rightsseemto beendangeredwhenthemodeofmaintainingor enforcingthemisaltered.Ithasbeenwellsaid,that"byfarthegreatestpor-tionsofthewrittenor statutelawsofEnglandconsistofthe declaration,the re-assertion,therepetition,or there-enactment,ofsomeolderlaworlaws,eithercustom-aryorwritten,withadditionsormodifications.Thenewbuildinghasbeenraisedupontheoldgroundwork;theinstitutionsofoneagehavealwaysbeenmodeledandformedfromthoseofthepreceding,andtheirlinealdescenthasnever beeninterruptedor disturbed."Theproofofthenon-existenceofthejuryamongsttheAnglo-Saxonsmustdependuponacarefulconsider-ationoftheirjudicialsystem,sofarasweareabletounderstandit; andthis,therefore,mustbethesubjectof ourinquiry.But inorder toobtainanaccurateideaofthatsystem,itisnecessary,first,tonoticetwore-markablefeaturesoftheirsociety,notindeedpeculiarto them,forwefindthat theyexistedontheContinentas wellasinEngland,butwhichseem to have beenmorefullydeveloped,andtohavehadmoreinfluenceuponthenationalinstitutionsherethanelsewhere.TheseweretheWergildandFrithborh,bothintimatelycon-nectedwitheachother-uponwhichitwillbeusefultosay a fewwords.3 Palgrave's English Commonwr. 6.IV.)43JUDICIAL SYSTEMOF ANGLO-SAXONS.[CH.SECTIONII.TheWergild.Thewer-gild(calledalsoman-bot)wasacompositioninmoneytobepaidforpersonalinjury donetoanother,accordingtothevaluewhichthelawsetuponhislife.'ForamongsttheSaxons, andindeedallthenationsoftheTeutonicfamily,everyfreemanwasdeemedtopos-seEsacertainpecuniaryvalue,whichvariedaccordingtohisrank;andthisdeterminedtheamountofcompen-sationwhichhewasentitledtoreceivefor awoundora blow.'WefinditmentionedintheearliestAnglo-Saxonlawsextant-thoseofKingEthelbert-whicharefullof minuteregulationsonthesubject.Everybodilyinjury,fromthelossofanailtothedestructionof life,hadits appropriate price,whichmustbepaidbytheof-fender;andit wasonly onfailure of thispaymentthathecouldbepunishedforhiswrongfulact.Aregulartariffof penaltieswasthusestablished,which,aswillbehere-afternoticed,gaverise toappellationsby whichdifferentclassesweredistinguished.Theking hadhis wergildaswellasthe lowestceorl.'Thegreatobjectof thissystemof pecuniarycompen-sationforactsof violence, was topreventthewild justiceof revenge,andput a checkupontheright of feudwhichwascherishedamongsttheTeutonicnationsasoneofthe inalienablerights offreedom.Whena memberof afamilywasslain, allhissurviving relationsfeltthemselvescalledupontoavengehisdeath,andtheyimmediatelyI Wersignifies"man,"andthereforewer-gild,orwer-geld,meanstheworth orpayment of aman.2 Luiturenim homicidiumcertoarmentorumvelpecorumnumero.Tac.Germ.c.21.ByoneoftheRipuarianlaws,leg.ii. tit. xxxvi.Dediversisinterfectionibus,itwasprovided,thatanimalsmightbegiveninsteadofmoneyasawergild,theirvariousvaluesbeingcomputedinsolidi.Thus,siquis weregildumsolveredebet, bovemcornutum videntemaet sanumproduobussolidistribuat.3 See"AncientLawsandInstitutes,"tit. Wergilds,-'THEWERGILD.becametheenemiesof, andinastateoffeud(fii)withthe personwhohadinflictedthe wound.'Itwasthere-foreprovidedthat,insteadofthis lex talonis,so destruc-tiveofthepeaceandwell-beingofthecommunity,theinjuredpartyif hesurvived,orhisrelationsifhedied,'shouldbe contentwitha money-payment as a com-pensation,or damagesfor the wrongdoneto him; and bya lawof Alfred,if anymanattemptedprivateredressbyvengeancebeforehehadshownhisreadinesstoacceptthe we'rgildif offeredtohim,hewastobeseverelypun-ished.If, however,theoffenderrefusedtopaythelegalcompensation,hewasexposedtothevengeanceoftheinjuredparty andhisfriends;andthisalternativewasexpressedbyanoldAnglo-Saxonproverb,Bicgespereof sideotherbere,"Buyoffthespearor bearit." *.Itappears,also,thatifanaffraytookplaceandseve-ral werekilledonbothsides,anaccountwastakenandbalancestruckof theamountofslaughter, andofthenumbersandvalue(wer)oftheslain.Ifonbothsidesthesewereequal,thennovengeancecouldbetaken,ordemandmadeof compensation;butif oneside hadsus-tainedgreaterlossthat the other,it wasentitledtocom-pensation(wer)orbotorvengeanceto theextentoftheoverplusorexcess.'ThusTacitustellusof theancientGermans,Susciperetaminimicktiasseupatrisseu propinquiquamnamicitiasnecesseest.DeMoribusGerm.C. 21.2 -recipitquesatisfactionemuniversadomus.Id.3Leg.Edw. Conl.x2.AmongsttheLombards,females werenot entitledto sharein thecompensationbecausetheycouldnot "bearthe feud."Quiafilimejus,eoquod fcemineosexuesseprobantur,non possuntipsamfaidamlevare,ideoprospeximusutipsamcompositionemnonrecipiant.Leg.Luitpr. Lang.ii.c.7.ThelawseemstohavebeendifferentelsewhereEtquiafoemina cumarmisdefenderenequiverit,duplicemcompositionemaccipiat.Leg. Bainv. iii.c.13.Perhaps,however,these lawsreferto diff-erent wergilds;the firstto payment of compensationin the caseof a relative,thelast topayment forinjury *done tothe womanherself.4SeeOaths, Anc.LawsandITtst.p.183.Leg.Hen.I.c.70,9 9.S"14IV.]5oJUDICIALSYSTEM01ANGLO-SAXONS.[LCBdtbesidesthepaymenttotheinjuredparty therewasapenaltyduetothestate,whichwascalledwite."Allcrimeswerebythe Anglo-Saxonsconsideredinatwofoldlight;first,asa damageor mischiefdonetotheindividual;next, asanoffenseagainstthepeaceofthewhole state;the punishment,therefore, was apportionedina twofoldratio.The injuredperson,orhisrelationsorgild-brothers,receivedcompensationfortheinjurydonetohimorthem,intheshapeofdamages.Thestate,or thoseto whomasanespecialprivilegethe statehaddelegatedthispower, receivedthefinefor thebreachof the peace."'SECTIONIII.The Frithbork.Inthe absenceof anything like anorganizedpoliceforthepreventionandpunishmentofcrime,theAnglo-Saxons,incommonwithalltheTeutonicnations,en-deavoredto securesome of the blessingsof a more settledstateof society through the mediumof thesystemknowninlatertimes bythenameof Frank-pledge.Thisword,however, isincorrect, andsuggestiveof error, for itisde-rivedfromFrithborh, thepledgeor guaranteeof peace-whichwascorruptedintoFreoborh,andtranslatedbytheNormanjurists,whowereimperfectly,if atall,ac-quaintedwithAnglo-Saxon,intoliberumplegium,in-steadofpacisplegium.Itmeans,therefore,a "peace-pledge,"themutualguaranteebywhicheverymemberofatithingaswellasofameg,orfamily,becameapledgeor surety(borh)totheother members,as wellasto thestate,forthe maintenanceof thepublicpeace.ieinvicemoccidant liberi,vel nativitate velcasuservi,unus pro alio jaceat.Si superabundataliquiseorumin genitura,qu~erantparentes ejusWere velvindictiesuperplus.Si uniusdignitatisetparitatis sint, ineoconsistat.Kemble'sIntroductiontotheCodexDiplomaticusiEviSaxonici,lviiAmost valuabledissertationuponpartsof theAnglo-Saxonlaw.TI"EFBITHBOZI.In thecollectionof laws calledLegesEdwardiConfes-soris,thereis afullaccountofthisuniversalsystemofbail."Anotherpeacethe greatestof allthereis,where-by allaremaintainedinformerstate, towit, inthees-tablishmentof a guaranteewhichtheEnglishcallFrith-borgas,withtheexceptionofthe menof York,whocallitTenmannetale,thatis,the number oftenmen.Anditconsistsinthis, thatinallthevillsthroughoutthekingdomall menareboundtobein a guaranteeby tens,sothat ifone ofthe ten menoffend,the other ninemayhold himtodoright."'Thesemembersof a.tithing werefellow-gildsmen,whoif acrimewerecommittedbyanyof theirbody, weretoarresthimandbringhimtojustice.Ifthey thoughthiminnocent,they wereto clearhimbytheir oaths-orif hewereconvictedand sentenced,theywereto pay thewergildandwite-andif hefledfromjusticetheywereto makeoaththat theyhadnoguiltyparticipationin hisescape;whichif theyfailedto prove,theyhadtopayapenaltyproportionedtotheoffense.So,ontheotherhand,theywereentitledto receiveapartof the compen-.sationpaidby awrongdoer,foranyinjuryinflictedonamemberof their gildortithing.2WefindalsoamongstthesamelawsanenactmentwhichmightwithsomeadvantageperhapsberevivedatthepresentdayinsomepartsofIreland,where,.owingtoconnivanceorintimidation,thedetectionofcrimehasinmany districtsbecomesodifficult.Thisprovidedthat thehundred whichdidnot within amonthandadaydiscovertheslayerofapersonmurderedwithintheirboundary,shouldpayasumofforty-sixI Leg.Edw. Conf. 20,and seeLeg. Edg. 11,6;Cnut,2o;Gul.Conq. iii.14.2 Siquisoccidathujusmodiquiparentesnonhabent,compositionismedietas solvaturRegiet medietasgildonibus.Leg.Alf. Chron.BromtonapudTwysden,p. 825.IV.)52JUDICIAL SYSTEMOP ANGLO-SAXONS.[CH.marks,of whichfortywentto theking,andthe remain-ingsixwenttotherelationsoftheslain,ifthemur-dererwerenotfoundandbroughttojusticewithinayear.'Theoriginalofthesesocietiesmustb