Price.l 212 fMay. 



equal rank and condition ; peers of the realm by such peers ; freemen 

 of the hundred by other freemen thereof. Such an immunity in ages 

 of violence and insecurity, must have been regarded as of inestimable 

 value, and as no age or country is exempt from the violence of jDre- 

 judice and excitement, and the partialities of similar social condition, 

 this security of trial by one's peers should forever be regarded as an 

 inappreciable inheritance. 



Justice is always administered with the highest satisfaction to the 

 citizen, when he is satisfied with those who are to adjudge his rights. 

 When assured that the jury are his equals, possessing a common in- 

 terest with himself in the laws to which they are to give effect, he 

 is best prepared to yield his confidence, and to abide by their verdict. 

 Add to this his privilege of striking from the panel so many as mea- 

 surably to make the residue to be persons of his choice, and he be- 

 comes the better satisfied to submit his rights to their decision. 



This institution of trial by jury, which since an unknown antiquity 

 has been consecrated in the affections of the only nations of the earth 

 truly free, it is suggested in this age of free inquiry, that spares not 

 the most sacred subjects, may be dispensed with, or essentially modi- 

 fied in its procedure. The first objection to be made to any change 

 of the trial by jury, is that change in itself incurs some risk of loosen- 

 ing a conservative dependence upon long-established and venerated 

 practice, and that the work of reform once begun may be carried to 

 a dangerous excess. 



This concession, it is believed, may be safely made : that the par- 

 ties litigant, when both are agreed, should have the privilege of sub- 

 mitting the facts and the law to the Judge or Judges who are sit- 

 ting on the bench. This is, indeed, done whenever the party 

 complainant files a bill in equity, or libel in the Admiralty or Con- 

 sistory or Probate Court, and parties dispense with a jury when they 

 agree upon the facts, and submit them to the Judges to pronounce 

 the law that arises upon them. As parties may agree to refer their 

 controversies to referees or arbitrators, both as to facts and law, so 

 they should be at liberty to make the Judges their referees of both 

 facts and law. To make provision for this would be no invasion of 

 the Constitution, and would demand no change of that fundamental 

 law. By consent, except in capital cases, a party may waive a benefit 

 secured to him by law. 



To go further, it is submitted, would be unwise and unsafe, as well 

 as require a change of our Constitutions; and this will further appear 

 by other reasons for trial by jury yet to be noticed. While it is ad- 



