ccording to the nature of the
offence: in cases of aggravated violence they often preferred a military
jury, but where conflicting testimony was likely to occur, they
preferred the greater number, only as less likely to agree. Forbes
stated that the chief difficulty was confining the juries to the
question of fact; but their verdicts had generally satisfied him. It was
the opinion of the judges, save Mr. Justice Burton, that trial by jury
had been too long deferred, and that benefit would result from its
unqualified adoption.[193]

In Van Diemen's Land, an ordinance was passed (1830), permitting the
judge to allow a jury in civil cases, whenever it was desired by either
party. The names were twenty-four: from these both parties struck out
six, and the remaining twelve were the jury. The first trial occurred
1830 (Butler _v._ Bent), in an action for libel, contained in a series
of letters written, or acknowledged, by Wells, an emancipist, and signed
"Simon Stukely." They were afterwards collected into a volume. The chief
persons in the colony were described with considerable spirit, but with
the usual injustice of anonymous satire.[194]

The danger to the fortunes of the people was more severely felt than the
peril of their liberty and lives. Thus a public meeting, demanding trial
by jury, was held in 1834: an address was presented to Arthur by a
deputation. In urging the amendment of the law, they referred to the
extraordinary powers possessed by the government. Arthur, in reply,
professed a liberal desire to gratify their wishes; but denied that he
possessed extraordinary powers, or that "they required to be watched
with more than usual jealously." He had, however, deferred the
establishment of British laws to the last possible moment, and certainly
possessed great powers; on the whole, more capable of perversion than
any ever known in a British colony.

The attorney-general, Alfred Stephen, was desirous of substituting for
the assessors a jury of seven, instead of twelve. His project was
opposed by Mr. Kemp, and indeed very generally disapproved. It was
argued, that the chances of influence multiply as the number of jurors
are decreased, and that the national practice was the only safe guide.
The amount of discussion that attended the dispute was prodigious:
pamphlets, and letters without end. The prejudice of the people was,
however, on the right side: although there is nothing sacred in an ancient
number, the ret