6.3(3 J U 
JU'RY, f. [ jurata, Lat. jure, Fr.] A company of men, 
as twenty-four, or twelve, (worn to deliver a verdift upon 
fuch evidence as (hall be delivered them touching the 
matter in queftion.—Clodius was acquitted by a corrupt 
jury, that had palpably taken lhares of money before they 
gave up their verdift. Bacon. 
The jury, palling on the prifoner’s life, 
May in the fworn twelve have a thief or two 
Guiltier than him they try. Shakefpeare. 
As trial by jury is efteemed one of the moil important 
privileges which members of fociety can enjoy, and the 
bulwark of the Britifti conftitution, every man of reflec¬ 
tion muft be ftimulated by the defire of inquiring into its 
origin and hiflory, as well as to be acquainted with the 
forms and advantages by which it is accompanied. Its in¬ 
ftitution has been afcribed to our Saxon anceftors by fir 
William Blackftone. “Someaufhors (fays that illuftrious 
lawyer) have endeavoured to trace the origin of juries up 
as high as the Britons themfelves, the firlt inhabitants of 
our ifland ; but certain it is that they were in ufe among 
the earlieft Saxon colonies, their inflitution being afcribed 
by bifiiop Nicholfon to Woden himfelf, their great legifla- 
tor and captain. Hence it is, that we may find traces of 
juries in the laws of all thofe nations which adopted the 
feodal fyllem, as in Germany, France, and Italy ; who had 
alRof them a tribunal compofed of twelve good men and 
true, boni homines, ufually the vaffals or tenants of the lord, 
being the equals or peers of the parties litigant; and, as 
the lord’s vaffals judged each other in the lord’s courts, fo 
the king’s vaffals, or the lords themfelves, judged each 
other in the king’s court. In England we find aflual men¬ 
tion of them fo early as the laws of king Ethelred, and 
that not as a new invention. Stiernhook aferibes the in¬ 
vention of the jury, which in the Teutonic language is de¬ 
nominated nembda, to Regner king of Sw'eden and Den¬ 
mark, who was contemporary with our Egbert. But we 
are apt to impute the invention of this, and fome other 
pieces of juridical polity, to the fuperior genius of Alfred 
the Great; to whom, on account of his having done much, 
it is ufual to attribute every thing ; juft as the tradition 
of ancient Greece placed to the account of their own Her¬ 
cules whatever atchievement was performed fuperior to 
the ordinary prowefs of mankind; whereas the truth feerns 
to be, that this tribunal was univerfally eftabliftied among 
all the northern nations, and fo interwoven in their very 
conftitution, that the earlieft accounts of the one give us 
alfo fome traces of the other.” 
At any rate, it is not contefted that the inftitution of a 
jury exifted in the time of the Conqueror. The document 
which remains of the difpute between Gundulf the bifiiop 
of Rochefter and Pichot the fherjff, afeertains this fact. 
We will ftate the leading circumftances of this valuable 
jpccount, from Turner’s Hiltory of the Anglo-Saxons. 
“ The queftion w'as, Whether fome land belonged to the 
church or the king ? The king commanded that all the 
men of the county fliould be gathered together, that by 
their judgment it might be morejuftly afeertained to whom 
the land belonged. This was obvioully a fhire-gemot. 
They, being affentbled, from fear of the Iheriff affirmed that 
the iand was the king’s ; but, as the bifltop of Bayeux, who 
prefided, did not believe them, he ordered, that, if they 
knew that what they faid was true, they fliould chufe 
twelve from among themfelves, who Ihould confirm with 
an oath what all had declared. But thefe, wdien they had 
withdrawn to counfel, and were there liaraffed by the ftie- 
riff through his meffenger, returned and fwore to the truth 
of what they afferted. By this decifion the land became 
the king’s. But a monk, who knew how the faft really 
flood, allured the bilhop of Rochefter of the falfehood of 
their oath, who communicated the information to the bi- 
fhopof Bayeux. The bifiiop, after hearing the monk, lent 
fpr one of the twelve, who, falling at his feet, confeffed 
that he had forefworn himfelf. The man on whofe oath 
they had fworn theirs, made a fimilar avowal. On this 
R Y. 
the bifhop ordered the fl-.eriff to fend the reft to London, 
and twelve other men from the bell in the county, who 
confirmed that to be true which they had fworn. They 
were all adjudged to be perjured, becaufe the man whole 
evidence they had accredited had avowed his perjury. 
The church recovered the land; and, w>hen thelalt twelve 
wilhed to affirm that they had not confented with thofe 
who had fworn, the bilhop faid they muft prove this by 
the iron-ordeal. And, becaufe they undertook this and 
could not doit, they were fined three hundred pounds to 
the king by the judgment of other men of the county.’’ 
By this narration we find, that a Ihire-gemot determined 
on the difpute, in the firft inftance ; but, that in confe- 
quence of the doubts of the prefiding judge, they chofe 
from among themfelves twelve who fwore to the truth of 
what they had decided, and whofe determination decided 
the cafe. 
The j ury was no doubt an inftitution of progrejjivegrowth, 
and its principle may be traced to the earlieft Anglo-Saxon 
times. One of the judicial cuftoms of the Saxons was, that 
a man might be cleared of the accufation of certain crimes, 
if an appointed number of perfons came forward and 
fwore that they believed him innocent of the allegation. 
Thefe men were literally juratores, who fwore to a vereaic- 
tum ; and fo far determined the fadls of the cafe as to ac¬ 
quit the perfon in whofe favour they fwore. Such an oath, 
and fuch an acquittal, is a jury in its earlieft and rudeft 
fiiape ; and it is remarkable that, for accufations of any con- 
fequence among the Saxons of the continent, twelve jura¬ 
tores were the number required for an acquittal. Thus, 
for the wound of a noble which produced blood, or dif- 
clofed the bone, or broke a limb ; or if one feized another 
by the hair, or threw him into the water; in thefe and 
fome other cafes, twelve juratores were required. Similar 
cuftoms may be obferved in the laws of the continental 
Angli and Frifiones, though fometiines the number of the 
jury or juratores varied according to the charge; every 
number being appointed, from three to forty-eight. In 
the laws of the Ripuarii we find that in certain cafes the 
oaths of even feventy-two perfons were neceffary to his 
acquittal. It is obvious, from their numbers, that thefe 
could not have been witnejjes to the faffs alleged. Nor can 
w r e fuppofe that they came forward with the intention of 
wilful and fuborned perjury. They could only be perfons 
who, after hearing and weighing the fafts of the cafe, 
proffered their deliberate oaths that the accufed was inno¬ 
cent of the charge. And this was performing one of the 
moft important functions of our modern juries.” 
Dr. Pettingal in his Inquiry into the Ufe and Practice 
of Juries among the Greeks find Romans, deduces the ori¬ 
gin of juries from thefe ancient nations. He begins with 
determinating the meaning of the word Siy.arai in the 
Greek, and judices in the Roman, writers. “ The common 
acceptation of thefe words (fays he), and the idea gene¬ 
rally annexed to them, is that of prejidents of courts, or, as 
we call them, judges ; as fuch they are underftood by com¬ 
mentators, and rendered by critics. Dr. Middleton, in 
his life of Cicero, exprefsly calls the judices, judges of the 
bench-, and archbilhop Potter, and in fhort all modern wri¬ 
ters upon the Greek or Roman orators, or authors in ge¬ 
neral, exprefs ouxrcci and judices by fuch terms as convey 
the idea of prefidents in courts of jujlicc. The propriety of 
this is doubted of, and hath given occafion for this inqui¬ 
ry ; in which is fhown, from the belt Greek and Roman 
authorities, that neither the Sinarai of the Greeks, nor the 
judices of the Romans, ever iignified prefdents in courts of ju¬ 
dicature, or judges of the bench ; but, on the contrary, they 
were diftinguilhed from each other, and the difference of 
their duty and funflion was carefully and clearly pointed 
out by the orators in their pleadings, who were the beft au¬ 
thorities in thofe cafes, where the queftion related to form's 
of law, and methods of proceeding in judicial affairs and 
criminal procefs. 
“The prefidents of the courts in criminal trials at A- 
thens were the nine archons, or chief magiftrates, of which 
i whoever 
