Jud. Est., chap. I, tit. i ; Bowring, vol. IV, p

72. Art of Packing, chap. vi, § 1; Bowring, vol. V, p. 88; chap. ii. — Cf. chap. v ; Bowring, vol. V, p. 85.

73. Rat. ofJud. Ev., Book lll, chap. xv, § 4 ; Bowring, vol. VI, p. 478. — On a confondu Texcellence de cette institution avec Texcellence de la cross-examùfiaHon, Rat. of Jud. Ev., Book II, chap. xx ; Bowring, vol. VI, pp. 506-507.

74. Rat. ofJud, Ev., Book IX, part. III, chap. ii, § 1 ; Bowring, vol. VII, p. 388.

75. Jud. Est., chap. Il, tit. ii ; Bowring, vol. IV, p. 324 : The committee, in compliance with a gênerai and not ungrounded préjudice, make it (the institution of juries) a funda mental article of the constitution. I give it to those who choose to bave it, in cases in which they choose to hâve it, and not unless they insist upon having it : looking upon it as an institution, admirable in barbarous times, not fit for enlightened times, necessary as matters stand in England, of use against particular mischiefs, but those happily no longer possible in France. — En 1791, il rédige un long fragment sur les jurys où il s'attache à réfuter ces préjugés; nous en extrayons les objections opposées par Bentham aux arguments de De Lolme : Where confusion reigns, truth is indiscernible. One of the most striking pleas in faveur of trial by jury is contained in an observation of Mr De Lolme's. « The

conséquence of this institution is that no man in England ever meets the man of whom he may say Thaï man has a power to décide on my death or life » (p. 184, éd. 1781). Look at it a little closely, it vanishes to nothiog. — 1. In the first place it turns upon life and deatb ; it isan argument notso much in favour of juries as against capital punishment. Butit is nothing. — 2. By décide does he mean literally décide in the situation of a Jndge?The fact is directly and violently against him. Much nearer to the truth would it hâve been to hâve said : No man in England ever meets the man of whom he might not say That man has power to dedde on my death or life. Ànd how many thousands may a man in any public be odioos to whom he does not know! Look at my jndge, simple, inconnected, dépendent on the people and tied down to the rigid life of duty hy a thousand bonds. Look even at the worst constituted judge or set of judges actiog in broad day : then look al the jury man, uncontrollable, irresponsible, whoM caprice, or antipathy or unknown interest or secret vengeance may décide his >vill and whose will is his only law and to whom a certain dose of obstinacy, from whatever source derived, gives power to subdue ail his fellows. — 3. Quitting the strict sensé of the word dedde, does the observation mean that under this regimen no man ever meets the man who bas in his power to pervert the law into an instrument of his destruction? It is not true of this System, it it is not true of any. Under any System even the worst constituted the station of the judge how ill soever fîlled is the station of ail others from whom such an injury is least to be apprehended. A false witness may extort an unjust conviction from the most uprigtit judge. A judge however profligate cannot of himself form a schéma for oppressing a man without the help of a false witness. Infinité is the mischief that may be done by a bad judge, but rarely indeed does it dépend upon him to choose his victim. The worst judges upon record liave not donc 80 : not Baoun in the civil law ; not Scroggs, not Jefferies in the criminal. Wicked judges are natural instruments of villainy but not natural contrivers.