The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1870.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 185, 9 August 1870, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1870.

The spirit of reform appears to be abroad in the House of Representatives this session. First, we are startled by the news of vast political changes whereby New Zealand is, in the course of the next ten years to become the most heavily indebted and, at the same time, one of the wealthiest countries in the world; then a proposition for a great social reform is made, and favorably received, by which married women are, so far as regards their property, to be placed on an equal footing with their husbands, and now we learn lhat an attempt has been made by Mr. Travers to create a violent change in our legal system by bo altering the law of trial by jury that for the future a verdict may be taken from the majority, instead of unanimity of opinion being required among the twelve men sworn to try the case. The following is the resolution proposed by Mr. Travers: "That, it would 'conduce to the more satisfactory administration of justice if, upon all trials of issues by jury, the decision of a [ majority, representing not less than twothirds in number of the jury, might be delivered as the verdict of the jury." In the course of a long and interesting speech the mover gave a slight sketch of the origin of trial by jury, showing how, in the first place, it was customary to take the verdict of the majority, but that during the reign of Edward I. a method got into practice of compelling the jury to agree in their verdict, it happening on one occasion that, when one of the jury would not agree, the judge took the verdict of the eleven, and committed the twelfth to prison. la the following year, however, the point was debated and it was formally decided that a verdict from eleven jurors was no verdict at all. Mr. Travers then proceeded to argue that the present system of locking up jurors for lengthened periods was unfair in the extreme, and that it was not right that I men who were prepared to do their duty, and to give the fullest consideration to the facts placed before them should be subjected to discomfort and annoyance through the obstinacy, and perhaps incapacity, of one or more amongst their number refusing to arrive at anything like a fair conclusion on the matter. The resolution met with a considerable amount of support in the House, Mr. Reynolds, when speaking in favor of it, illustrating his arguments by an anecdote which, though certainly amusing, was not calculated to have much effect upon the minds of members. "He happened," he said, "on one occasion to be on a jury, eleven members of which were agreed as to the verdict and one dissented. They were likely to be locked up for the night, when one of the jurymeu said, 'I will soon make him give in.' He ' squared ' at the juryman and the result was that he gave in." The conclusion Mr. Reynolds draws from this interesting little incident is so complete a non sequitur that we should not be doing justice to his great reasoning powers did we omit to mention it. "That circumstance aJone," he says, " was quite sufficient to Bhow that it is impossible to get twelve men to agree, unless by undue influence." Fortunately, however, for the country there are more enlightened men than Mr. Reynolds in the House, and the question was well argued on both sides, those who were opposed to the proposed reform stating that by not insisting upon unanimity one of the most essential conditions ofj trial by jury — the one which gave security ' for the exhaustive discussion of the questions to be decided — would be done away with, for under such circumstances there was nothing to prevent deccisions being arrived at -without any discussion whatever, as, if the opinious of eight men were sufficient, the other four, however strongly they might feel on the subject, would find it useless to talk it over. Another reason urged for requiring unanimity was that it impressed each juryman with a proper sense of his. personal responsibility in the matter before him, and the imperative necessity of giving to it his undivided attention, and the utmost powers of bis mind. Such is the pith of the arguments adduced for and against the proposed change, but we fail to see that Mr. Travers has made out his case, or that the reasons he gives are in any way sufficient to justify the legislature in making so violent a

reform in our present system of trial by jury. It is not that we are particularly wedded to the number of twelve, bnt when it has been the habit for centuries to appoint that number on a jury and to require from them an unanimouss verdict, surely some very cogent reasons should be urged in support of any proposition to place the power of arriving. at a decision in the hands of the lesser number of eight. Besides, it stands to reason that the unanimous verdict of twelve men would be far more likely to give satisfaction, and to carry convictions to those concerned, and to the public generally, thau would be the case if it were known that one third of the number were dissentients. We are interesting debate, but at the same time most indebted to Mr. Travers' motion for a we are not sorry to find that owing to the opposition offered by the Government there is no probability of any Bill being brought in to give effect to it.