1884.] 
“ Technical Trials .” 
349 
houses and seen the work which was being done with the 
alleged “polluted” water, they would in a few minutes 
have been able to reach a more exaCt conclusion as to the 
injury sustained than all the chemical and spectroscopic 
analyses brought forward, and all the orations of eminent 
counsel could or did lead to. This case, doubtless, might 
serve for a type of many in different arts. 
I may be asked, since the scheme of technical juries does 
not appear to me totally unobjectionable, what remedy I 
should propose ? My plan is very simple, and has to some 
extent been already tried. Let the experts not be “called ” 
by either plaintiff or defendant, or indeed adt as witnesses 
at all, but let them be appointed by the court as assessors 
to the judges. Just as the latter gives an authoritative ex- 
position ol the law of the realm as bearing upon the case at 
issue, so these experts would expound to the jury the con- 
clusions of Science as bearing upon the case. They would 
be under no temptation to speak as partisans, since the 
success of either party would be to them absolutely imma- 
terial. They would be exempt from either examination-in- 
chief or cross-examination. Consequently there would be 
nothing to deter men of the highest eminence from giving 
the court the benefit of their knowledge and experience. 
The jury would receive their opinions continuously, not in 
the fragmentary form of a catechism, and counsel on either 
side would have no scope for perverting their utterances or 
making them unintelligible to the jury. Finally, I would 
recommend that in all such cases as nuisances, machinery, 
manufacturing processes, &c., the Court should adjourn to 
the very locality and to the objects concerned, and see, as 
far as possible, with its own eyes, which would save much 
talk. 
As I have been discussing the composition of juries, I 
may, perhaps, indulge in a few remarks not strictly relevant. 
It is well known how women are gradually asserting their 
rights to a share in certain functions formerly deemed to 
pertain solely to men. They have obtained the power to 
vote in certain municipal and local elections, and to take 
their seats, if elected, on a variety of Boards. They are 
now demanding the Parliamentary franchise, and seats in 
the House soon will follow. But I never hear of them 
claiming to serve on juries. Is it that they draw a hard and 
fast line between what are commonly called “rights” and 
“ duties,” political or municipal, and that whilst eager for 
the former, they are quite willing to overlook the latter ? 
