CHANGES AT ATHENS UNDER PERIKLES. 387 same : recourse to a certain number of private citizens, taken by- chance, or without possibility of knowing beforehand who they will be, sworn to hear fairly and impartially plaintiff and defend- ant, accuser and accused, and to find a true verdict, according to their consciences, upon a distinct issue before them. But in Ath- ens this theory was worked out to its natural consequences ; while English practice, in this respect as in so many others, is at vari- ance with English theory : the jury, though an ancient and a constant portion of the judicial system, has never been more than a portion, — kept in subordination, trammels, and pupilage, by a powerful crown, and by judges presiding over an artificial system of law. In the English state trials, down to a period not long before the revolution of 1688, any jurors who found a ver- dict contrary to the dictation of the judge were liable to fine ; and at an earlier period, if a second jury on being summoned found an opposite verdict, even to the terrible punishment of attaint.i ' Mr. Jardine, in his interesting and valuable publication, Criminal Trials, vol. i, p. 115, after giving an account of the trial of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton in 1553, for high treason, and his acquittal, observes: " There is one circumstance in this trial, which ought not to be passed over without an observation. It appears that after the trial was over, the jury were required to give recognizances to answer for their verdict, and were afterwards imprisoned for nearly eight months, and heavily fined, by a sen- tence of the Star-chamber. Such was the secm-ity which the trial by jury afforded to the subject in those times : and such were the perils to which juries were then exposed, who ventured to act upon their conscientious opinions in state prosecutions ! But even these proceedings against the jtuy, monstrous as they appear to our improved notions of the administra tion of justice, must not be considered as a wanton exercise of unlawful power on this particular occasion. The fact is, that the judges of England had for centuries before exercised a similar authority, though not without 6ome muiTnuring against it ; and it was not until more than a century after it, in the reign of Charles the Second, that a solemn decision was pro- nounced against its legahty." "In the reign of James the First, it was held by the Lord Chancel- lor Egerton, together with the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron, that when a party indicted is found guilty on the trials the jury shall not be ques tioned ; but on the other side, when a jury hath acquitted a felon or a traitor against manifest proof, they may be charged in the Star-chamber for their partiality in finding a manifest offender not guilty. After the abolition of the Star-chamber, there were several instances in the reign of Charles the St'conO. in which 't w:!.s resolved, that both grand and petit juries might be
