“ Technical Trials .” 
346 
[June, 
But admitting all these advantages of the new technical 
juries, I must still point out some grave objections to the 
proposal. In the first place, medical practitioners and 
pharmaceutical chemists are at present by law exempt from 
serving on juries, and that for reasons which must at once 
commend themselves to the common sense of the public. 
The great body of chemists and druggists are claiming the 
same exemption, and on the very same grounds. It is not 
likely that these numerous and organised bodies would 
willingly forego their present or hoped-for immunities, and 
consent to aCt as jurymen in what are often the most tedious 
cases. If, then, they could not be counted on, it would 
often, in country districts, be difficult to find a sufficient 
number of persons qualified to sit on a technical jury. 
Engineers, architects, works’ chemists, analysts, college 
professors, &c., would, further, be fairly entitled to claim 
exemption from serving on ordinary juries, if made specially 
liable to this kind. 
A far more important point is that unless special care 
were exerted in selecting such a technical juty, it would not 
have the advantages sought for. Let us, e.g., suppose a 
trial for an alleged infringement on a patented improvement 
in locomotive engines. The court has summoned at random 
a sufficient number of persons from the technical jury-list, 
and when the trial begins the panel is found to consist of 
physicians, surgeons, a chemical analyst, and a professor of 
botany from College. In this very possible case, 
where will be the advantage as compared with an ordinary 
or a special jury? The jurymen will be as ignorant of the 
technical language of the subject before them as would be 
an equal number of “esquires or merchants.” They will 
not know, of their own knowledge, whether the statements 
made by witnesses are in accordance with recognised truth 
or not. They will still require to have the faCts elicited 
explained to suit their comprehension, and they will thus be 
liable to be led astray. 
I take another case : Suppose Palmer being tried over 
again. Let the jury comprise four medical men and two 
chemical analysts, but let the residue be made up of archi- 
tects and engineers, with a professor of geology. Here, 
again, the advantages would be problematic. The first six 
would understand the technical language of the case. They 
would be able to sift for themselves the evidence offered. 
The physicians would know the meaning, e.g., of certain 
symptoms deposed to as having been observed before death, 
and of certain appearances noted during the post mortem 
