xtenuating circumstances"; and
another, being unable to come to a decision, was reported to have cast
lots before an Icon, and to have given a verdict in accordance with the
result! Besides this, juries often gave a verdict of "not guilty" when
the accused made a full and formal confession to the court.

How far the comic anecdotes are true I do not undertake to decide, but I
venture to assert that such incidents, if they really occur, are too
few to form the basis of a serious indictment. The fact, however, that
juries often acquit prisoners who openly confess their crime is beyond
all possibility of doubt.

To most Englishmen this fact will probably seem sufficient to prove that
the introduction of the institution was at least premature, but before
adopting this sweeping conclusion it will be well to examine the
phenomenon a little more closely in connection with Russian criminal
procedure as a whole.

In England the Bench is allowed very great latitude in fixing the amount
of punishment. The jury can therefore confine themselves to the
question of fact and leave to the judge the appreciation of extenuating
circumstances. In Russia the position of the jury is different. The
Russian criminal law fixes minutely the punishment for each category of
crimes, and leaves almost no latitude to the judge. The jury know
that if they give a verdict of guilty, the prisoner will inevitably be
punished according to the Code. Now the Code, borrowed in great part
from foreign legislation, is founded on conceptions very different
from those of the Russian people, and in many cases it attaches heavy
penalties to acts which the ordinary Russian is wont to regard as mere
peccadilloes, or positively justifiable. Even in those matters in
which the Code is in harmony with the popular morality, there are many
exceptional cases in which summum jus is really summa injuria. Suppose,
for instance--as actually happened in a case which came under my
notice--that a fire breaks out in a village, and that the Village Elder,
driven out of patience by the apathy and laziness of some of his young
fellow-villagers, oversteps the limits of his authority as defined by
law, and accompanies his reproaches and exhortations with a few
lusty blows. Surely such a man is not guilty of a very heinous
crime--certainly he is not in the opinion of the peasantry--and yet if
he be prosecuted and convicted he inevitably falls into the jaws of an
article of the Code wh