Kuyesedwa ndi Jury mu Old Times.

Wolemba Thomas Frost.

PAMENE tidziyamikira tokha, as we are so apt to do, on the length of time the system of trial by jury has been established in England, and the safeguard it affords against attempts to strain the law to the prejudice of the accused, we are often unmindful of the fact that the institution has not always proved a safeguard when the court, acting under the influence of the Crown, endeavoured to obtain a conviction. It was only in the latter half of the sixteenth century that juries began to evince that determination not to yield their own judgment to the wishes of those in high authority, which became further developed in the course of the seventeenth. An interesting illustration of the old spirit of judges, and the new spirit of juries, is afforded by the trial of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, mu 1554, pa mlandu woukira boma, pokonza chiwembu cha imfa kapena kuikidwa kwa Mfumukazi, ndi kulanda ndi zida za Tower of London. Kuzenga mlandu kunachitika ndi Serjeant Stanford ndi Attorney-General, Griffin, kutsogolera wakale; ndipo n’zochititsa chidwi kuti iwo ndi Chief Justice Bromley anafunsa mkaidiyo mofanana ndi mmene anthu amachitirabe ku France ndi ku Belgium., kuyesetsa kupeza umboni umene ungamutsutse pakamwa pake. Ntchitoyo inalephera, ndipo umboni wokhawo wotsutsa mkaidiyo udali m'mawu omwe amati a Winter and Crofts, WHO, komabe, sanaitanidwe ngati mboni.

Oweruza, pambuyo pa kukambirana kwa maola angapo, adabweza chigamulo choti alibe mlandu, pomwe Ambuye Chief Justice adalankhula nawo mowopseza, kunena, “Dzikumbukireni nokha bwino. Kodi mwalingalira mozama umboni wonsewo monga momwe unalengedwera ndi kunenedwa? Nkhaniyi imakhudzanso ukulu wa Mfumukazi komanso inunso. Samalirani bwino zomwe mukuchita. ” Oweruza anali olimba, komabe, ndipo foromani anayankha remonstrance wa benchi, “Tamupeza kuti alibe mlandu, chogwirizana ndi chikumbumtima chathu chonse.” Kenako Attorney-General ananyamuka, ndikulankhula kukhoti, adatero, "Ndizosangalatsa inu, ambuye anga, popeza ayesa iwo a bwalo lamilandu, zomwe zamumasula modabwitsa mkaidi pa milandu yomwe adatsutsidwa, adzatuluka m'bwalo nthawi yomweyo, Ndikupempherera Mfumukazi kuti iwo ndi aliyense wa iwo akhale omangidwa pozindikira £ 500 chidutswa chimodzi., to answer to such matters as they shall be charged with in the Queen’s behalf, whensoever they shall be charged or called.” The court went beyond even this audacious request, for they actually committed the jury to prison! Four of them were discharged shortly afterwards, having so little moral stamina left as to make a humble confession that they had done wrong; but the remaining eight were brought before the Star Chamber and severely dealt with, three being ordered to pay a fine of £2,000 each, and the others £200 each.

In the following reign, in a case in which three persons were indicted for murder, and the jury found them guilty of manslaughter only, contrary to the direction of the court, the jurors were both fined and bound in recognizances for their future “good behaviour.” A decision of the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, in the reign of James I., sets forth that when a person is found guilty on indictment, the jury should not be questioned; but when a jury has acquitted a prisoner against what the court holds to be proof of guilt, they may be charged in the Star Chamber, “for their partiality in finding a manifest offender not guilty.” In 1667, we find this view extended to the case of grand juries ignoring a bill on grounds which the court did not consider sufficient. Chief Justice Kelying in that year having fined a grand jury of the County of Somerset, chifukwa chosapeza chikalata chenicheni chotsutsa munthu woimbidwa mlandu wakupha; koma, likutero lipotilo, “chifukwa anali njonda zodziwika bwino m’chigawochi, khoti linapereka chindapusa.” Nkhani iyi, ndi ena angapo omwe woweruza yemweyo adachitanso chimodzimodzi, zidabweretsedwa pansi pa chidziwitso cha House of Commons, komabe, ndipo msonkhanowo udatsimikiza kuti "zotsatira komanso zolipira chindapusa kapena kutsekera m'ndende oweruza kuti agamule zigamulo ndizosaloledwa."

Ngakhale chigamulo ichi cha House of Commons, William Penn, ndi membala wina wa Society of Friends, dzina lake Mead, akuimbidwa mlandu ku Old Bailey chifukwa chokhala nawo, ndi anthu ena osadziwika, mosaloledwa komanso mwaphokoso anasonkhana mu Gracechurch Street, mu mzinda wa London, the Recorder dealt with the jury in a manner which caused the illegality of fining jurors for their verdicts to be again brought into question. The indictment set forth that Penn, by agreement with and abetment of Mead, did in the open street speak and preach to the persons there assembled, by reason whereof a great concourse of people gathered and remained a long time, in contempt of the King and the law, and to the great terror and disturbance of many of His Majesty’s liege subjects. The trial took place before the Recorder, the Lord Mayor, and the Aldermen; and when witnesses had deposed that Penn had preached, and that Mead was there with him, the Recorder summed up the evidence, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. They were absent a considerable time, at length returning with the verdict that Penn was “guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.”

“Is that all?” the Recorder asked.

“That is all I have in commission,” replied the foreman.

“You had as good say nothing,” observed the Recorder, and the Lord Mayor added, “Was it not an unlawful assembly? You mean he was speaking to a tumult of people there.”

“My lord,” returned the foreman, “that is all I have in commission.”

“The law of England,” said the Recorder “will not allow you to part until you have given in your verdict.”

“We have given in our verdict,” returned the jury, “and we can give in no other.”

“Gentlemen,” said the Recorder, “you have not given in your verdict, and you had as good say nothing; therefore go and consider it once more, that we may make an end of this troublesome business.”

The jury then asked for pen, ink, and paper, and the request being complied with, they again retired, returning after a brief interval with their verdict in writing. They found Penn “guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly met together in Gracechurch Street,” and Mead not guilty.

“Gentlemen,” said the Recorder, regarding the jury angrily, “you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be locked up, without meat, kumwa, fire, and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict, or you shall starve for it.”

Penn protested against this course, pomwe Wojambulayo adalamula akuluakulu a khoti kuti amuyimitse pakamwa kapena kumuchotsa. Oweruza sakusiya bokosi lawo, Wojambulitsa adawawuzanso kuti apume ndikuwunikanso chigamulo chawo. Penn adachita chitsutso mwa mzimu. “Chipangano cha amuna khumi ndi awiri,” adatero, "ndi chigamulo m'malamulo, ndipo wotereyo wapatsidwa ndi bwalo lamilandu, Ndikufuna kalaliki wamtendere kuti alembe, monga adzayankha pa ngozi yake. Ndipo ngati oweruza abweretsa chigamulo china chotsutsana ndi ichi, Ndikutsimikizira kuti iwo ndi apongozi abodza. Ndinu Achingelezi,” anawonjezera, kutembenukira ku jury, “samalireni mwayi wanu; osapereka ufulu wako.” Kenako khotilo lidaimitsa mpaka m’mawa wotsatira, pamene akaidi anabweretsedwa ku bar, ndi jury, amene anatsekeredwa usiku wonse, adatumizidwa. Iwo anali olimba ndi cholinga, ndipo kupyolera mwa kapitawo wawo adalimbikira pa chigamulo chawo.

“Kodi ichi ndi cholinga chanji?” Adafunsa motero Wojambulitsa, "Ndikhala ndi chigamulo." Kenako kulankhula ndi juror, dzina lake Bushel, amene adamuwopseza dzulo lake, adatero, "ndiwe munthu wabodza; ndidzaika chizindikiro pa iwe, ndipo pokhala ndiri nacho chochita mumzinda, Ndikhala ndi diso pa iwe.

Penn adatsutsanso oweruza kuti awopsezedwe mwanjira imeneyi, pamene Ambuye Meya analamula kuti pakamwa pake atsekedwe, ndi kuti wopalasa bwato adze nawo maunyolo, nam’mangira pansi; koma sizikuwoneka kuti izi zidachitika. Oweruza adalangizidwanso kuti apume pantchito ndikubweretsa chigamulo china, ndipo adatuluka mwa chitsutso, kapitawo anati, “We have given in our verdict, and all agreed to it; and if we give in another, it will be a force upon us to save our lives.”

According to the narrative written by Penn and Mead, and quoted in Forsyth’s “History of Trial by Jury,” this scene took place on Sunday morning, and the court adjourned again to the following day, liti, unless they were supplied with food surreptitiously, they must have fasted since Saturday. The foreman gave in their verdict in writing, as before, to which they had severally subscribed their names. The clerk received it, but was prevented from reading it by the Recorder, who desired him to ask for a “positive verdict.”

“That is our verdict,” said the foreman. “We have subscribed to it.”

“Then hearken to your verdict,” said the clerk. “You say that William Penn is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; you say that William Mead is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; and so say you all.”

The jury responded affirmatively, and their names were then called over, and each juror was commanded to give his separate verdict, which they did unanimously.

“I am sorry, gentlemen,” the Recorder then said, “you have followed your own judgments and opinions, rather than the good and wholesome advice which was given you. God keep my life out of your hands! But for this the court fines you forty marks a man, and imprisonment till paid.”

Penn was about to leave the dock, but was prevented from doing so, upon which he said, “I demand my liberty, being freed by the jury.”

“You are in for your fines,” the Lord Mayor told the prisoners.

“Fines, for what?” demanded Penn.

“For contempt of court,” replied the Lord Mayor.

“I ask,” exclaimed Penn, “if it be according to the fundamental laws of England, that any Englishman should be fined or amerced but by the judgment of his peers or jury; since it expressly contradicts the fourteenth and twenty-ninth chapters of the Great Charter of England, which say, ‘No freeman ought to be amerced but by the oath of good and lawful men of the vicinage.’”

“Take him away,” cried the Recorder.

“They then,” continues the narrative, “hauled the prisoners into the bail-dock, and from thence sent them to Newgate, for non-payment of their fines; and so were their jury. But the jury were afterwards discharged upon an habeas corpus, returnable in the Common Pleas, where their commitment was adjudged illegal.” Even then, judges appear to have remained unconvinced of the illegality of the practice, or stubborn in their desire to enforce their own views or wishes upon juries; for the question was not regarded as finally settled until the decision in the Court of Common Pleas was clinched, in the same year, by a similar judgment of the Court of King’s Bench.