Correspondence.

The Jury System.

To the Editor of the Midland Evening News.

Sir,—A fertile subject for discussion is supplied to lawyers and students of social science in the operation of our jury system, and the difficulties of working it which arise from the general disinclination to serve on juries. This reluctance, gentlemen of the long robe are, for the most part, unable to account for, though we conceive that a little personal experience as jurors might considerably enlighten them. Theoretically, a juryman represents the judicial opinion of the community, just as a member of Parliament does its political opinion; and, in point of fact, the juryman discharges some of the very highest duties of citizenship. The property, the reputation, and even the lives of his fellow subjects stand on his verdict; and he is bound under the most solemn obligations to the exercise of insight, discretion, intelligence, and integrity. One might, therefore, perhaps not unreasonably assume that such functions would afford some title to respectful consideration; and, indeed, so far as mere words go, jurors generally have little, reason to complain. The charges of judges are, in their way, models of courtesy, page break though when compared with the actual treatment dealt out to jurors, they sound little better than a mockery. Relegated to the custody of a sheriff's officer or "bobby;" thrust into a room which is too often cold, bare, dark, dirty, and cheerless, their position is only, perhaps, one degree preferable to that of prisoners under trial. How, therefore, can it he a matter of surprise that aspirants for such treatment are few, and that a fine is regarded as the lesser evil?

But the mere discomfort to which jurymen are subjected is a trifle compared with the intolerable and seemingly reckless manner in which their time is wasted. It may be a matter of ascertainable certainty that a case will not be reached until hours, or even days, after the opening of the court. Still the attendance of the jurors is insisted on from the first. Then again, punctuality is expected from jurors, and if late they are liable to be fined. But who ever knew of an instance of a judge taking his seat at the prescribed hour? If anyone, then his experience has been pleasanter than mine; for, whether attending as suitor, witness, or juror, I have always had to endure a waste of time ranging from half an hour to an hour and a half. To judge from what usually takes place one would infer that punctuality was incompatible with the dignity of the bench—a species of condecension out of place as applied to "all sorts and conditions of men." Yet this homely virtue is deemed "politeness" in kings; and, if so, may surely be accepted as a plain duty by everybody else. Employers rigorously insist upon its observance by those in their service; and it is hard to see that it is any less obligatory on the part of public servants towards that public which employs them and pays them. The time that each individual juryman, suitor, or witness is compelled to waste in awaiting the judge's arrival is as valuable to him as his honour's time is to the judge—indeed, possibly more—for the judge's salary goes on whether he is late or early, whilst the business of private individuals often declines to conduct itself properly during their absence. But there is another, and a still more important aspect of the case, for the loss of one hour's time to fifty men is practically equivalent to one man's wasting fifty hours, which represents a particularly good week's work. If, therefore, we suppose 100 persons on an average to be in attendance on a court, it results that every half-hour by which the judge is late represents an entire week wasted to the community, or that the daily wage of one man is destroyed by every five minutes of needless delay. Englishmen, however, are proverbially a long-suffering race, and the fact of abuses having long subsisted is too often accepted as a sufficient justification for continuing them for ever. Still, I cannot but think it befitting that decent accommodation should generally be provided for jurymen, and that persons having to attend courts should be protected against all avoidable waste of time.