J U R 
After thefe ftrong legal arguments, the reader may not be 
difpleafed to perufea few Ihort extracts on this difficult fub- 
ject from fir Richard Phillips’s publication, fo often quoted 
in this article. “ Juries fliould liften with attention to the 
judge’s expofition of the law', and they fliould hear with re- 
fpeit his obfervations on the evidence; although to decide 
on the evidence is not his bu.ffiiefs,but theirs ; yet his pro- 
feffion, rank, experience, and office, demand their attention, 
and a reafonable degree of deference. The jury are to de¬ 
cide on their own convidlions, in regard to the facts adduced 
in evidence, combined with the information given them by 
the judge, relative to the bearings of the law on the cafe. 
It is not an ejjenlial part of the duty of a judge to fum up the 
evidence ; but his reafonings ought to be received refpeft- 
fully, yet not without great referve and jealoufy (if wholly 
on one fide), the jury being, by the conftitution, the foie 
judges of the evidence. Nothing but grofs ignorance in 
a jury, palpable inattention, or incapacity to take notes 
of the evidence, can render fuch interference neceffary. 
Juries are bound by refpeft to themfelves, and by their ob¬ 
ligations to the rights and liberties of their country, to 
difcountenance all partial obfervations of the judge on the 
evidence. With reference to the bearings of the law, 
judges cannot, however, be too explicit, or juries too at¬ 
tentive. They are unavoidably ignorant of law, and in 
this refpeft muft receive inftru&ion from the judge, and 
rely on his knowledge and perfpicacity for fo much of 
their verdiCl as involves a mixture of the law with the faft. 
The obfervations of the council on both fides cannot fail 
to affift them in acquiring legal views of the queftion be¬ 
fore them; but the judge is an authority on which they are 
hound to rely ; and, if he does his duty ably and completely, 
there will be few occafions for fubfequently difputing the 
verdict of an honeft and fenfible jury. 
“There is in many cafes a pure queftion of law, which 
can never depend on any general principles, but muft be 
governed by certain fixed and arbitrary rules, to be col¬ 
lected from former decifions; and the judge alone is com¬ 
petent to determine how far thefe are or are not applicable 
to the particular cafe. 
As neighbours of the parties, juries are often more 
competent to decide than judges; they are alfo more in 
number, and they are bound by their particular oath in 
each caufe. Again, the aficendancy of their influence ex¬ 
cites no public jealoufy; becaufe the fame fel of jurymen 
are feldom on a jury ; while the permanent afcendancy of 
a judge would be fufpicious and dangerous. If a judge 
agree with the jury, the interpofition of his opinion is ule- 
lefs ; and, if he differs from them, it is unneceffary to give 
his opinion ; becaufe the jury cannot help feeing with 
their own eyes, and they are bound by their oaths ,to de¬ 
cide on their own convictions. Further, if a jury were at¬ 
tainted for giving a falfe verdidt, it would be no valid plea 
'of innocence, or bar of the penalties of conviction, that 
they followed the direction of the judge, and, from fenti- 
ments of courtefy and deference, yielded their own opi¬ 
nions to the more enlightened judgment of the court. 
“If judges were religioufly to refrain from giving a co¬ 
lour to the evidence, nothing could be more definable to 
the jury than to have it fully recapitulated from the bench ; 
but, if a judge interpofe his own opinion (and it is difficult 
for him to avoid doing fo), it is likely to make an impro¬ 
per impreffion on the jury, becaufe it is mod unpleafant 
to jurymen to give a verdifl in apparent variance with 
the expreffed opinion of the judge ; and, when a juryman 
feels doubtful, he is apt to quote the opinion of the judge, 
and excufe himfelf to his own confcience, by relting on 
that opinion rather than on his own convidtion, or, what 
is worfe, rather than take any trouble to inveftigate the 
fubjedl. 
“ I am aware that judges will continue tenacious in re- 
• gard to a practice which has been fanetioned by long cuf- 
tom, and which conftantly adds to their influence ; but, as 
■I deprecate every fpecies of foreign interference in the opi¬ 
nions of juries relative to the caufe before them, I do not 
J U R 551 
conceive that a practice which interferes vitally with the 
independent and unbiafled exercife of their functions, 
ought to efcape obfervation. After all, it would beafa- 
lutary, if it could be rendered an inoffenfive, practice; and, 
were judges to determine to recapitulate the evidence, 
without didlating their own opinions, they would com- 
mendably affift juries, and indicate a degree of refpedt for 
the independence of trial by jury, and for public opinion, 
highly honourable to themfelves. Judges are too good lo¬ 
gicians to miftake thefe obfervations on an unconjlitutional 
praElice, and on an occafional abule of their privileges, for 
an imputation on their general conduft. I have heard at 
leaft five hundred charges to juries, and I confefs the ma¬ 
jority of them have been models of found realoning and 
judicial eloquence ; and I never heard a fcore to which an 
objeffion could have been juftified. I believe alfo, I ve¬ 
rily and fincerely believe, that there are not more able and 
upright men exifting than the judges of England. Their 
education, their experience, their habits of life, and their 
office, entitle them to profound refpeft. But, during a 
trial by jury, it muft never be forgotten, without any per- 
fonal difparagement to them, that, by the conftitution, 
they are but legal afl'ijlants of the jury -, that the jury are 
primary, and that judges are fecondary ; that it is the jury 
who are to examine, try, and decide totally and finally ; 
and that the foie and only duty of the judge is clearly 
and fully to ftate the law as it may hypothetically bear on 
any kind of verdict of which the cafe may be fuficeptible , 
and, after the verdidt, to aflign the legal punifliment, or 
pafs the judgment of the law.” To conclude ; it will 
doubtlefs be granted, that this difpute on the power, pro¬ 
vince, and rights, of juries, has arifen from a jealoufy, on 
their parts, of the predilection fuppofed to be entertained by 
judges of the courts of law in favour of the king’s pre¬ 
rogative; and, on the other hand, from the opinion thole 
courts entertain that juries may be too much inclined to 
ficreen popular offenders from the punifhment of the law. 
The trial by jury is one of the few relics of the firft 
revolutionary conftitutions which (till exift in France ; if 
indeed the weak, mutilated, and uncertain, ftate to which 
it is reduced deferves the name of exiftence. What then 
is the charge againft this inftitution, on the pretence of 
which Bonaparte has aflailed, and, we may add, over¬ 
thrown it? M. Faber (Internal State of France, juft pub- 
li filed) replies, “ Becaufe it leans to the fide of mercy; 
becaufe it rather abfolves the guilty than condemns the 
innocent.”—“ Such (he proceeds to fay) was the light in 
which Bonaparte chofe to view the trial by jury. It is 
true that crimes of every kind were committed in France 
with alarming audacity ; but the government, inftead of 
feeking the caufes of this general deluge of vice in the 
public indigence and a continual ftate of warfare, thought 
fit to impute them to the juries, and lay them to the 
charge of their humanity.” Laboured fpeeches were pro¬ 
nounced in the tribunate, exaggerating every fpecies of 
objection to the obnoxious inftitution ; and, “ to obviate 
the danger that might arife from it to a new order of 
things,” a law was at length palled, velting in tribunals of 
exception the cognizance of all crimes to which a political 
colouring could be given. Thus the trial by jury is en¬ 
tirely laid alide in all cafes wherein the government is 
concerned. 
For further matter incidental to the duty and office of 
a jury, fee the articles Trial and Verdict. 
JU'RYMAN, f. One who is impanelled on a jury.— 
No judge was known, upon or off the bench, to ufe the 
leaft infinuation that might affedt the interefts of any one 
Angle juryman, much lefs of a whole jury. Swift. 
The hungry judges foon the fentence fign. 
And wretches hang tha.t jurymen may dine. Pope. 
JU'RYMAST, f [It feems to be properly duree mafl , 
mat cle duree, a malt made to laft for the prefent occation.] 
So the feamen call whatever they fet up in the room of a 
malt loft in a fight or by a llorm; being fome great yard 
which 
