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 retrenchment 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_.]