JB/081/182/001

Click Here To Edit

same petty Jurymen, in number exactly
12, had pronounced their pretendedly
unanimous opinion on that same question,
under the name of Grand Jurymen
in number from 12 to 24 inclusive, with
dissentiment voices, in any number form
1.1011. inclusive, had been pronouncing
theirs.

Yet, only on one side does a
Grand Jury hear evidence: on the two opposite
sides, the Petty Jewry. In the opposition and conflict,
which in the Petty Jewry case has place, is
there any thing that is of a nature to render
coincidence of opinion the more assured? More
assured than when the evidence is all on one
side?

Now if in either of these cases, there could be the shadow of a reason
for the compulsory unanimity, in which
case would it be? In the case of the Grand
Jewry assuredly rather than in that of the
Petty Jewry. Why? Because in the Grand
Jury as above, only on one side is evidence
ever heard: in the Petit Jury constantly
on both sides. Is it by conflict in evidence
that agreement in opinion is more apt
to be produced than by agreement in evidence?

Such being the absurdity
of the device, such it's inefficiency to every

---page break---

adopted, what reason can there be for
regarding this as being more likely than
it's opposite is, to be the proper one?

But though to produce a
change in the opinion really entertained
is a thing which pain can not do in
the instance of any one, yet to produce
a change in the opinion declared to be
entertained, is a thing which pain, and
this very pain, not only can do in the
instance of some one of them, but is ever
known not unfrequently to have done in
the instance of all but one —

Of this so triumphantly trumpeted,
so anxiously preserved, and so zealously
propogated unanimity, what then and often as
the Jury quits the box is the result? Answer —
Two doses: one composed of pains; the other
of wilful falshood and perjury. The dose of falshood,
some number, from one to eleven, are
made to swallow: the dose of pains, all twelve:
all this, without the least imaginable benefit
to justice.

The verdict, with the opinion
expressed by it, being given, comes now the
question — in what way is it, that, on that side,
and not on the other, the victory terminated?
Answer – in this – The Foreman, having
been the object of the general choice, the person
the most likely to propose for acceptance one

Identifier: | JB/081/182/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 81.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	081	Main Headings	petition for justice
Folio number	182	Info in main headings field
Image	001	Titles
Category	copy/fair copy sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c7 / c8 / c9 / c10
Penner		Watermarks
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	25969
Box Contents