Law Courts 169
manorial courts, jurors could only be drawn from the
class of freeholders and the whole mass of peasantry was
below that; in civil actions in the manorial courts, the
peasant might have a jury made up in part, or occasionally
wholly, of his class, but in criminal cases, which would not
be tried in these courts, his verdict was rendered by a
class much above him. On the other hand in the case of
men of standing and influence in the community, it was
hard, owing to the principle of unanimity, to obtain from
a jury an adverse verdict in any serious matter,x Yet a
great thing had been done; a great experiment in self-
government was being unconsciously tried. There are
five general steps in judicial procedure: first, (in criminal
actions) the prosecution; second, ascertaining the facts;
third, declaring the law; fourth, the judgment; fifth, carry-
ing the judgment into effect. A little reflection mill show
that the first two of these present new facts in each case
and entail great responsibility, while the last three (espe-
cially in consideration of the circumscribed field in which
court judgments could operate in the middle ages) were
relatively mechanical. Regarding the judiciary as the
most fundamental side of government, it is fair to say
that the two most vital steps of government's most
frequent and important activity were placed in the hands
of representatives of the people. Why did the kings do
this? The answer must be drawn from the detailed
account of the jury's institution and growth in England;
they found it a means of building up their own courts and
revenue, they disliked the old forms of proof, they dis-
1 "After some hesitation our law had adopted its well-known rule that
a jury can give no verdict unless the twelve men be all of one mind. To
obtain a condemnatory unanimity was not easy if the accused was a man
of good family; one out of every twelve of his neighbours that might be
taken at random would stand out loyally for his innocence. Bribery could
do much; seignorial influence could do more:_ the sheriff, who was not
incorruptible, and had his own likes and dislikes, could do all, sinceJt
was for Mm to find the jury." Maitland and Montague, Sketch of English
Legal History, p. 65. Maitland believed that if it had ^not been for the
drastic calling of jurors to account by king and Council, in the time of
the Tudors and Stuarts, the institution might not have survived. As to
the grand jury it has undergone very little change since the end of the
I5th century. See Maitland, C. JET. JB., p. 212.