MIXED JURIES.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17104, 28 March 1921, Page 10

MIXED JURIES.

IN THE DIVORCE COURT.

FIKST EXPERIENCE,

(FROM OCR OWN CORRESrOSTF-N'T.)

LONDON, February 3. Or.c of tlio burning topics of tho hour centres round the question of women i jurors and mixed juries. Ought women j jurors to be excluded from juries enlled upon to try unsavoury eases? Their first experience was in a divorce case last week, when it was decided that scme> part.iculafly unpleasant exhibits—four pictures which had >.o be illuminated from behind —should not bo seen j by the six women, while there were let- ! tors written by the husband to tho wifo | which counsel (Sir E. Marshall Hall) described as •'abominable and beastiy." One of the women assented to counsel's compromise that the men jurors only should be shown tlio exuibits, and tho others agreed. The men, who sat together in tho front seats, were shown the letters, and were permitted to gauge the character of the transparencies with the aid of matches lighted by the ushor behind them. Tho Judge said this was one of the difficulties that aroso from having women on juries: had tho jury been composed of men he would have..passcd the exhibits round, because they really could not gauge the relationship which had existed between husband and wife without seeing thorn. Front correspondence which has since ensued,- women —professional women, at any rate —do not desire to be relieved of jury duties, but some lawyers are found to favour the Judgo using his powers of exemption. The. statute leaves to the Judge a discretion to make an order that a jury "shall bo composed of men only or women only, as the crtv-o may require." In addition, it provides that ho may grant exemption from service to any woman who applies for it ''by 'reason of the nature of the evidenco to bo given, or of the issues ta bo tried." How a woman is to ascertain beforehand tho nature of tho evidence is not set forth, but the Act authorises rules of Court, which might bo 60 framed as to render its operation to some extent compatible with tho social traditions and customs of this country. Lady Solborr.e, much touched by the wish of learned gentlemen ,to , save women jurors from unpleasant'eases, puts the case very neatly, writing:— "If you are trying to clean up a mess it is no use being afraid of the dirt. Filthy details are odious to cleanminded men and women, just as lilthy smells are odioUß. But if either doctors or nurses were driven from their profession because of the sickening duties they have to perform, we should not think very well of them. Wo are not defiled by what we hear, but by what we think. Women doctors and nurses are brought into contact with siii and the consequences of sin, and women lawyers and jurors will have to face the facts of life. lam not afraid that they, will be . less able to preserve .themselves from contamination than their brothers." Miss Lilian Barker, executive officer of the new training scheme of the Central Committee on Women's Employment, who was one of the jurors, reaUrpb that there are ti large number of men who do not wish to see-women in public life, using as the excuse that ft certain number of perfect wives and mothers-would learn things of which they have been carefully 'kept ignorant. "There' are, of course, women who will not want, to sit- on juries—who will not. want to do anything which would give them. any trouble or cause them any inconvenience—and there is a corresponding class of men. But the chief objection is one, the reason for which has not been given> it is common 'to both depraved men and women, who do not' Hvish their corrupt practices to Tie known to the ordinary woman who would be summoned to sit on a. jury. Such people wero safe before in the freemasonry among men—good and bad —which makes them haijg together and conceal from the ordinary decent woman practices which, if they .were known, would be stopped by the force of the joint public opinion of decent men. and decent women. If it were known that letters might, in the eventuality of a divorce, have to be read before a- mixed jury. I feel tolerably sure they would never 'have been written. Depraved people have no scruples among themselves, nor have they any objection to a male jury knowing of what they have been guilty, but I should imagine tho deterrent effect of mixed jpries in the future would be great. "Nice-minded. men are quite as indignant as we are at the attempt that : is being made to exclude women. The matter will have to be thrashed, out, and there will have to be the fullest .light of day thrown on everv matter which comos into Court. If Sir Edward Marshall-Hall had not raised the question, it would never have occurred to anyone that womon jurors would jot feel it their duty to consider the mat-, ters that might come before them in the same impersonal and sensible way as men jurors. Tho suggestion has had most undesirable results. If Sir Edward wished for some genuine cause of comolaint on grounds, of modesty and delicacy, he would easily find it in the public benches of tho Court, where as unpleasant a type of prurientmiftded people as one could collect in the whole of London appears to come to enjoy details which are usually omited in newspaper reports." Dr. Mary Sharlieb thinks women should serve as jurors in ail ordinary . cases, including .divorce and murder. It is all nonsense to pretend that the nerves of women generally are not so good as those of men, and that therefore women jurors are less fitted to carry out their duties as reliable citizens. Women must be prepared to bear their full share of the work of the nation. "I do say, however, that there may be divorce cases from which all decent men would he glad to allow women jurors the privilege of retiring." - . Mrs Fawcett writes that, in considering: whether women jurars should or should nob be forced to hear evidence on these subjects, it appears to have •been completely forgotten by those who objoCt to the presence of women jurors that the evidence in such cases—unpleasant enough though it is bound to be—relates necessarily difficulties and disputes in. which women and children have been involved, or to offences committed against women and children. It is in precisely such cases that the need for women as jurors is greatest. The absurdity, if not the injustice, to the parties concerned in these cases, of excluding one sex, as such, from the jury, would perhaps be more patent if it had anywhere been suggested that men should bo tried by a jury of women only. All cases, with a. few inevitable.' exceptions, are best tried by juries composed of both men and women. Both are humah beings, arid the interests of both are affected bv all cases in the Courts. To Miss Eva M. Hubback (Parliamentary Secretary of the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship), "it appears to have been completely forgotten, by those who object to tho presence of women'jurors, that women and children are involved.' Unpleasant though some evidence is bound to be, it is precisely in such case's that the need fov jurywomen is greatest. - The only women who would wish to shirk their duties, therefore, are those who prefer to remain blind to the difficulties and sufferings of their less fortunate sisters. Most cases are best tried by jurors composed of both men and women. Both are human, and the interests of both are affected."

Legal Comment. The "Law Journal" says:—"Earlia-