OCR Text |
Show 472 AcTs RELATING Part 3U, Seé‘t.Vll[. TO THE COLONIES. 473 ments urged againft the trial By jury in his property feeurer in the determination of u jury, for they are nearer My rank. civil cafes, fome went directly in favour Now the law which heft fecures the pro- of that mode; others proved, not that the Canadians difliked a jury, but that they perty of the greatelt number, is furely the heft law. The law which gives the withed to make a real improvement in greateit secefiion of feeurity, where there it. For it was faid by one witnefs, that the reafon why the Canadians difliked a is : gtturally the greateft weaknefs, is {ure- jury in civil caufes was, that they did not think their property f0 fafe in the deter- It was urged too, that the Canadians did not with for an Engliih jury; for they mination of taylors and flioemakers, mix- neither ed with people in trade, as in that of the judges. Now this objection was evidently dictated by the pride of nadir/(3; a French gentleman finds himfelf humbled by feeing a roturit‘r put on a par with his nor expected a jury to be What many think \Ve may obferve too, that of the argu- dignity. If the inititution of‘juries would tend to check this pride, {0 incontinent with the fpirit of freedom, that very circumf'tance is the {irongeft argument why juries {hould be permitted in civil eaufes. if the gentleman thinks his property fafer iu the hands of the judges, becaufe they are nearer his rank, the plebeianwill think his ly the belt law. doated on the number twelve, in their confeience they feldom are, though they mutt pretend to be, unanimous. They therefore wilhed their juries to conhit of uneven numbers, and the deeifions to be colleé‘red from a plurality of voices. This furely did not prove their diflike to juries; it proved only, that they had feen a defect in the conf'titution of our juries, to which habit and cuitom has blinded us, and that they w‘fhed to have a remedy for that detect. lnfiead of refuting them a jury on this account, fome have thought it |