renchment must have increased the facility of corruption.
The law, as it ultimately passed, removed the danger, by giving either
party a right to demand a jury; and to the party against whom the
application was made, a choice between a petty and special jury; but
three-fourths were taken as the whole, after six hours deliberation.

This act was framed in virtue of an order of council by the king in
1830. It provided that in criminal prosecutions where the governor, or
any inferior officer, civil or military, could be interested in the
result of a trial, a jury taken from the special jury list should try
the issue.[195]

To Arthur the colonists were not indebted: the secretary of state had,
long before, announced the determination of the government in favour of
the measure. It was not carried out until nearly four years after its
authorisation. The removal from the colony of the stigma of military
juries, was delayed until 1840, when the trial of crimes and
misdemeanours was entrusted to the hands of the inhabitants, and the
grand bulwark of public and private freedom raised in Tasmania.

The convictions for perjury were not numerous: the whole system partook
of the unsoundness of its elements, and the inhabitants were indebted
for their safety to those principles of humanity, which, in the absence
of interest and passion, regulated the measures of the government, and
restrained its agents from atrocious conspiracies.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 190: Signed by C. Swanston, T. Anstey, J. Kerr, C. M'Lachlan,
R. Willis, W. A. Bethune.]

[Footnote 191: Letter produced by Mr. Kelsy, of the Colonial office.]

[Footnote 192: Twelve months imprisonment, L200 fine, and sureties in
L500 for two years.]

[Footnote 193: _Par. Pap._ 1837.

6th Geo. iv. c. 5, disqualified a person to serve convicted of any
capital offence, except free pardoned.

7th & 8th Geo. iv. c. 28. sec. 13, gave to a conditional pardon under
the sign manual the same effect as great seal.

In cases not capital, service had the effect of free pardon: 9th Geo.
iv. c. 32. sec. 3.

All the laws of England were adopted by the Act of 1828: thus the
disqualification for jurors, in cases capital, was taken away.

Judge Forbes stated, that in civil issues the juries had some difficulty
in comprehending the distinction between law and fact: _ad questionem
facti respondent juratores, ad questionem legis judices_.]

[Footnote 194: The original Simon Stukely was a