the most thoroughly expressive feature in the administration of British justice, is, in its essential principle, nothing more than the citizen's right to have the judgment of an impartial committee of his fellow-citizens on any question of fact tending to affect his life, his liberty, or some important patrimonial interest. The origin of the practice has been traced by juridical antiquaries into many and far diverging sources, but they have all been found converging in one direction, by the influence of a common determination, which seems to have ever guided the purpose of the Anglo-Saxons and some other northern races, in the practical application of such existing institutions as could be influenced to the end in view. Guided by a suspicion that the interests of free men could not be entirely confided either to their political rulers or to trained officers of the law, the end they had thus ever before them was to obtain the judgment of a fairly selected body of their equals to decide those simple questions of fact, which all men of sense and perception can better decide according to the rules of every-day life which guide their own actions, than the best trained philosopher or lawyer can by the application of abstract principles or traditional practices. Thus, the jury has been identified with the compurgators of the Saxons; with the inquisitors or assessors who investigated and certified to the Norman lord the extent of his feudal rights; with the peers who represented the interests of the vassals in the court of the feudal seigneur, as parliament represented the interests of the tenants of the crown; with the judices of the Romans, and with the dicasts of the Greeks. Perhaps the practice of jury trial has drawn something from all of these sources except the last; and we may even see their divergencies typified at the present day. Thus the necessary unanimity of the English jury is supposed, not without reason, to be a relic of the accused Saxon's privilege to clear himself by the oaths of twelve compurgators who believed him guiltless, while the Scottish verdict by a majority bears the character of the old feudal court of peers, where each member gave his council and his vote. However humiliating it may be to trace the "palladium of our liberties" to such a source, yet there is no resisting the evidence, that the practice which had most concern in the formation of jury trial was that compurgation which was one of the ordeals on which men threw their cause, influenced in some instances by superstition, in others by a propensity for gambling, in many by a reliance on their own audacity and discretion, but in none by an expectation that justice would be impartially administered through mere human wisdom. The ordeal of battle lived so long in the theory of English law, as to have been absolutely claimed so lately as the year 1817, as a remedy against the abuse of its rival ordeal, trial by jury. Down to that time, the process called an Appeal in murder enabled the relations of a person said to be murdered to appeal from the acquittal of a jury to another jury, whose verdict, if it condemned the accused, could not, like ordinary verdicts of guilty, be obviated by the royal prerogative of mercy. On this, the last reference to a jury by appeal of murder, the accused offered the other ordeal of battle, and the legislature had to deal with, and abolish both these remnants of barbaric practice. (See APPEAL.) Nine hundred years earlier—in the tenth century—the northern sagas afford evidence of an almost identical competition of ordeals. Thus, a report, as it may be termed, relative to a litigation by Egil Skallagrimson, is thus translated by a Norse scholar:

"When Atli entered the court with the jurors, Egil met him, saying that he had no mind to receive the oath of a jury for his money. The law which I offer, he said, is different; we shall fight a duel here in court, and let the money be his who gains the victory. What Egil said was indeed law, and an ancient custom, for every man had a right to challenge another, whether he was a defender or prosecutor in a cause. Atli said that he would not refuse Egil's challenge. You speak, said he, what I ought to speak. Then Atli and Egil shook hands, mutually ratifying their agreement to fight. He who gained the victory was to have the estates about which they contended." (Egil's Saga; Repp on Ancient Juries, 10).

There was still a third class of ordeals, which was essentially the ordeal by miraculous intervention. It is exemplified in the well-known ceremony of walking blindfold on a path where red-hot ploughshares were laid down at intervals. The origin of this ordeal is attributed to the legend of Bishop Boppo, who, when engaged in the conversion to Christianity of the obstinate Jutlanders, was quite unsuccessful, until he tested the truth of his faith by putting his hand in a red-hot iron glove, and withdrawing it unhurt. Such a form of ordeal naturally fell into the hands of the priesthood, who would constitute themselves the agents of miraculous intervention, and it became unpopular among the lay opponents of spiritual supremacy. The ordeal by combat, too, held out more hope to those who wielded force or policy than to those who sought abstract justice; and it at last diverged through the institutions of chivalry to the single combats of later times. The duel so peculiar to the manners of Europe in the present, or perhaps it should more properly be said in the previous generation, was, with its special ceremonies and obligations, the natural descendant of the ordeal by battle. The ordeal by compurgation had much to recommend it in preference to the others among a people eminent for their common sense and their attachment to justice. It adjusted itself to the system of frank-pledge, or common liability. If the person who committed a depredation was not discovered the neighbours were responsible for it. What then more just than to admit the innocence of him who could get a sufficient number of those neighbours to express their belief in it?

In the laws of Alfred, to whom trial by jury, along with many other national institutions, is popularly attributed, the system of compurgation is briefly described thus:—"If any one accuse a king's thane of homicide, if he dare to purge himself, let him do it along with twelve king's thanes. If any one accuse a thane of less rank than a king's thane, let him purge himself, along with eleven of his equals, and one king's thane." Hallam justly warns us not to be misled by the number twelve in identifying the Saxon practice with proper jury trial. From whatever cause it may have happened, this number seems to have been consecrated by the northern nations to numerous collective functions. By the treaty of Ethelred III., certain disputes between Welsh and English were adjusted by a standing committee of twelve men, six of them Saxon and six Welsh. By a law of the same prince, a committee of twelve thanes sat as assessors to the sheriff. Many forms of inquest were held through twelve men. When the throne of Norway became vacant, twelve men from each of the great provinces were selected to undertake the responsible duty of appoint- Jury Trial.

No one of these is to be counted the sole origin of jury trial; nor can it be exclusively traced to the feudal practice of the assembling of the chief vassals or pares curiae, to assist the feudal lord with their council. But with that peculiar facility for turning to improved practical account ancient institutions with the least possible change either in their name or their character, through which the British constitution has developed itself, the jury system grew to maturity by absorbing into itself more or less vitality from nearly all these elements. An institution very like it in external character has been found in the customs of Normandy, and was prevalent in several of the French provinces. The English institutions were thus so far impregnated with the Norman character after the conquest, that some antiquaries have held jury trial to be an institution of entirely Norman extraction. In Magna Charta, and the other confirmations of liberties by the early kings, it is provided that "no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, or condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." By the more rigid juridical antiquaries it has been called a mistake in Blackstone and other popular writers, to suppose this passage to refer to trial by jury, since it speaks of a separate practice common to England with other feudal countries—the inquisition by peers;—but it was one of the systems out of which the modern practice of jury trial was moulded, and was, in fact, the form in which it existed through a considerable period of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

In all their shapes and characters it must be kept in view that the early jurors were rather witnesses than judges. They did not sit to receive the testimony of others, but they communicated the resolution adopted on the ground of their own knowledge. This feature is the more remarkable, as one of the great objects in the theory of modern jury trial is to obtain the decision of persons whose judgments are unwarped by previous acquaintance with the matter at issue, or the statements of the parties in dispute. The obsolete principle is still represented in the term verdict, vere dictum (truly said), as applied to the decision of a jury. In Scotland there is a still more palpable relic of the principle, in the oath put to a jury, which is to the effect, that the juror shall "the truth tell, and no truth conceal," in passing on the assize. The Scottish jury was feudal in its institution, having probably been directly imported from France, and its character as a testifying, rather than an adjudicating body, lasted down to a comparatively late period. For instance, in the year 1606, Maxwell of Gribtoan, and his followers, were charged with a murderous attack on his relations, with whom he disputed the possession of the family estates. Among other outrages the offenders laid siege to the tower or keep of Newbig, the family seat and stronghold; and altogether the affair was one of those savage feuds in which all the neighbours were deeply embarked on one side or the other, and any such thing as impartial testimony was out of the question. The Privy Council, which frequently acted as a court of justice, endeavoured to deal with the case, but were impeded by the total want of testimony, and it was brought into the Court of Justiciary on the principle that, as that tribunal had the services of a jury, testimony was unnecessary for its guidance. The Lord-Advocate represented that crimes are often committed secretly, and in such manner that no witnesses can be cognizant of them, and therefore it is that crimes need not be proved by witnesses, but are referred to the knowledge of a sworn assize, whose determination, according as they are persuaded in their conscience, is a sufficient warrant to themselves, and a just cause of conviction. The notoriety of the offence was all the material offered for the guidance of the jury; and they were told the singular rule of law, that, with this notoriety before them, if they could not conscientiously cleanse or absolve, they must of necessity convict, and they did so. (Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, ii., 265.) In the trial of James Scrimgeour for murder in the year 1619, a stand appears to have been taken by the crown lawyers against the admission of witnesses to contradict the accusation, and influence the minds of the jury. "Thair aucht," said the prosecutor, "na witnesses be reassait befor the assye, seing the hail poynis consists in facto, and the tryell thairof is remittet to the assye, quha becomis bayth tryerys and witnesses tharin" (Ibid. iii., 470). It used at the same period to be customary to put juries on trial for "wilful error," or a finding contrary to what they knew to be the truth, and the analogy of the character and functions of the jury was carried out in the punishment of such error, which was the same as the punishment for perjury.

The practice of punishing juries for improper verdicts was known also in England, but it disappeared at an early period; and nearly a century before the date of the instances cited from Scottish practice, the jury in England had acquired the function expressed in the obligation of their oath, to "give a true verdict according to the evidence." Although no longer the neighbours of the party concerned, acting on their own personal knowledge of the state of facts, yet, as representing "the country," a jury was looked upon as the jealous protectors of the innocence of their fellow-countrymen. Hence it seems to have been held unfair to arraign a foreigner before a jury entirely consisting of Englishmen, and the jury de mediate lingua, of which one half were aliens, was early conceded to the trial of foreigners, and has been a permanent feature of the English administration of justice.

Trial by jury became a peculiar instrument of the common law courts. In the courts of civil or ecclesiastical origin, the method of inquiry was by commission; but the inquisitorial secrecy in which this process was supposed to be involved has always rendered it unpopular; and in equity proceedings it became the practice to take the aid of the common law courts, and send disputed matters of fact to be decided by juries on issues. The staple questions on which juries decide in England are, in the first place, all the heavier offences, and, in the second place, disputed matters of fact in litigations before the common law courts. In these it came to be the form, that when issue was joined by the simple and distinct announcement, "And this the said A prays may be inquired of by the country?" or, "And of this he puts himself upon the country, and the said B does the like?" that the court, by the appropriate writs, caused to be summoned on such a day "twelve free and lawful men, who are of kin neither to the foresaid A nor the foresaid B, to recognize the issue of the truth between the said parties." Before an indictment for a crime comes before the real working jury, it is still customary for the grand jury "to find a true bill;" but this preliminary, which was formerly one of the solid barriers against oppression, has become little better than a ceremony. Antecedent to the grand jury, in cases of violent death, is the coroner's inquest, which has become a somewhat clumsy means of achieving the very desirable object of preserving a certified, official record of all the circumstances connected with the discovery of a dead body, or the occurrence of a violent death. Thus, a person tried for murder in England or Ireland passes three times through the ordeal of a jury. The function of juries has in all parts of the United Kingdom been considerably extended by the pro- Jury Trial gress of railways and other public works; the property taken from private owners, under the parliamentary powers, being in disputed cases valued by a jury.

It is natural that the adjustment of the boundary between the function of the jury to ascertain the fact, and that of the court to apply the law, should have been subject to much jealous contention. If the rules of law prevented the jury from getting access to a knowledge of the facts, or failed to give effect to their finding, the efficacy of jury trial as a protection to public justice was annihilated. On the other hand, if juries got beyond their proper function, the law of the land would become as mutable as the opinions of every casual assemblage. The law has always assumed the prerogative of dictating what is to be evidence; and as it could not, in all cases, keep the jury from being influenced by that which it declared not to be evidence, the clumsy expedient of new trials on account of verdicts contrary to the evidence was adopted. In Scotland, in the reign of Charles II., the courts endeavoured, in criminal cases, to take out of the hands of the jury the plain question of "guilty" or "not guilty," by settling beforehand a train of facts whence guilt might be presumed, and requiring the jury to find whether these facts were or were not established. It was not until the trial of Carnegy of Finhaven for the murder of Lord Strathmore in 1728, that they re-established their privilege to give a general finding of guilty or not guilty.

The class of persons of whom jurors are to consist has varied at different periods, and the specific qualification of the jurymen is at present peculiar to each of the United Kingdoms. The function has always been deemed a burden rather than a privilege; and several classes of citizens have obtained exemption from it, more by their influence than by their unfitness to perform the jurymen's functions. It has always been a popular belief that butchers, from their supposed callousness to suffering, are excluded from juries; but there is no such law.

The qualifications of ordinary jurors in England, as fixed by the Act of 1825 (6th Geo. IV., c. 50), may be taken as a type of the class who now serve as jurors throughout the United Kingdom. Every man between the ages of twenty-one and sixty, who has no special exemption to plead, is liable to serve, if he possess landed property under any of the ordinary tenures, which are specifically enumerated in the Act, worth L10 a-year; or who is a leaseholder for twenty-one years, or life, of land worth L20; or who is rated as a householder for poor-rates or inhabited house-duty, at L30 in Middlesex, or L20 elsewhere; or who occupies a house containing not fewer than fifteen windows.

There are very complex arrangements throughout the empire for preserving, through the aid of the parochial and other petty officers, an accurate and impartial record of jurors. There is a double object to be served in the accurate impartiality of the lists,—the one to save qualified jurymen from the oppression of too frequent service; the other to disable persons interested from "packing" a jury, or placing men upon it who will serve their object. The panel of jurors—or the whole body out of whom the twelve who are to act are selected by lot—is returned by the sheriff according to an established rotation. The Act of 1825 rendered it unnecessary to summon a separate panel for each cause to be tried at an assizes, and appointed one panel, of not less than forty-eight, or more than seventy-two, jurors to be summoned. The Act authorizes two panels, one for the civil, and one for the criminal work of the assizes. The right of challenge is one of the arrangements for securing an impartial trial. The suitor may challenge the array, as it is termed, or the whole jury, if there be any fundamental blemish in its constitution; or he may bring against any particular jurymen a challenge, per poll, on disqualification, personal interest, or other similar objection. A person under trial for a capital offence has the privilege of objection to one jurymen after another, to the number of thirty-five, by peremptory challenge, without assigning any cause. Questions may, on special application, be tried by what are called "special juries." The special jury list consists of those who are entered as esquires; and the privilege of resorting to such a jury has generally been used in cases where the nature of the litigation rendered it of moment that a verdict should come from persons skilled in the matter in dispute. The arrangements for adjudication by special juries were adjusted in the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852.

It has already been seen that in the development of the jury system Scotland did not follow the same course as England; but the general spirit of the English system has had an influence over the tendency of its neighbour. In Scotland there is no coroner's inquest. In ordinary criminal prosecutions there is no grand jury, and the ordinary jury or assize, consisting of fifteen, give their verdict by a simple majority. In questions of treason the English system was, much to the discontent of the country, introduced immediately after the Union. Jury trial in civil cases was inconsistent with the traditional spirit of the Scottish legal tribunals. The Court of Session, consisting, like the penal jury, of 15 members, represented the old judicial committees of parliament, or the grand jury of the nation. Their method of procedure had, down to a very late period, several elements of a popularly deliberative character, distinguishing them in an emphatic manner from the rigid legal technicalities of the English common law courts. In the year 1815 it was determined that the English system of jury trial should be brought into Scotland, and a separate court of commissioners was appointed to carry it into effect. In 1830, after what was deemed a sufficient trial of the system in this separate form, it was made a portion of the ordinary jurisdiction and procedure of the Court of Session. Trial by jury in civil questions has not been popular in Scotland; and whatever good it may have accomplished has certainly been balanced by much costliness, uncertainty, and tedious protraction of litigation. The English system of pleading has, through a long course of refining, brought itself to that simplicity of assertion and denial which at once opens the issues on which a jury have to decide. But the Scottish system of pleading was formed for the purpose of reaching results in a different manner. It was predicted by law reformers, that what in England offers the means of a rapid and distinct decision on the point in dispute, would in Scotland merely add an element of prolixity and confusion to a method of procedure already too cumbrous; and the prediction has, at least in popular estimation, been verified. It is a common remark, that the threat of a jury trial is one calculated at once to enable a rich man to frighten his opponent into submission. A people not trained to a traditional veneration for every feature of the system, could not see a logical conformity in making twelve men swear that they would do justice according to their consciences, and then coercing them by confinement and starvation until they had agreed to be all of one mind. In 1854 the stringency of the rule of unanimity was accordingly relaxed by a provision that, after six hours' deliberation, a verdict returned by nine of the twelve jurymen should be effectual (17th and 18th Vict., cap. 59). Some attempts were made, but in vain, to introduce this arrangement in England.

In estimating the general merits of the jury system, its inapplicability to communities not trained to it must be counted. Like many other safeguards of freedom, it is effectual only for the protection of those who raise it for themselves. Among people trained by arbitrary governments to submit when they must, and rebel when they can, it has been found utterly futile; they cannot compre- Jury Trial. lend any use of a power or a privilege save the serving of their own immediate objects. Even in France, where it was introduced after the Revolution in criminal questions, it has given imperfect satisfaction. It has been said that in important, and especially in popular cases, juries have been led astray by excitement; while for conducting the ordinary routine of dry business, the country does not afford sufficient public spirit. It will probably soon be seen how far juries may be effectually replanted in those Scandinavian states, whence, in their indigenous growth, they have been long uprooted.

Whether in England itself jury trial is not worshipped with a superstitious and indiscriminating reverence is a fair question. No one will deny its inestimable services in criminal trials. It is not only a protection against political oppression and the procrustean cruelty of implacable legal technicalities, but it tends to bring the method of discerning truth in questions between man and man to scientific perfection. It is quite true that there are eminent difficulties before the prosecutor who requires to bring all his evidence up at one moment, and fit together its several parts before a public audience. From the sound rule, that no man can be twice tried, any defect in the completeness or the adjustment of the evidence is fatal, and a criminal escapes. But the rigid exactness thus enforced only tends to give the evidence adduced to a jury a perfection which the method of secret inquisition does not require. There are few nobler objects than a great trial, in which the results of legal and detective skill, all brought to a focus, are exhibited before the world, bringing out, as in a drama, the unravelled intricacies of some great crime.

For civil cases, the great utility of the jury has consisted in its being a method of keeping the facts of each case absolutely separated from the law. The importance of this absolute separation can scarcely be over-estimated; and though it might seem possible that it should be accomplished in a less ceremonious manner, yet respect is due to the opinions of those who hold that the employment of men taken from the ordinary affairs of life, and restrained neither by technical rules of law nor official routine and prejudice, brings daylight into courts of justice, and enables them to walk in the proper direction of their functions to do substantial justice between man and man. It is proper, in conclusion, to mention a tentative arrangement for substituting the decisions of a judge for the verdict of a jury, when parties consent to an issue being so tried. It was introduced by an Act of 1850 regulating the procedure in Scotland, and it was transferred to England by the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 (17th and 18th Vict., c. 125). It is said, however, that the arrangement so sanctioned has been rarely adopted. The measure for deciding small debt questions in England in county courts passed in 1846, had previously adopted a modified jury system. The number of jurors was to be five, but unless a jury was specially demanded, and the required notices sent, the function of deciding the fact as well as the law was left to the judge.

Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de, the most illustrious member of a family which has given several great names to science and was long known as the dynastie botanique of France, was born at Lyon, April 12, 1748. At the age of seventeen he left his native town to study medicine in Paris. He took up his abode with his uncle Bernard de Jussieu, one of the lecturers on botany in the Jardin du Roi, and a man of immense scientific learning and skill. The teaching and example of this relative first gave the young student a taste for the science which he may be said in a great measure to have created, or at least re-modelled. He did not, however, wholly abandon medicine; but the thesis which he defended on taking his degree in 1770—"An Economiam Animalium inter et Vegetalem Analogia"—indicates clearly enough the bent that his thoughts and studies had already taken. In this same year he was made professor of botany in the Jardin du Roi, in room of Lemonnier, whose duties as first physician to the king prevented him from lecturing regularly in person. This rapid and sudden promotion took him by surprise. He was only twenty-two years of age, and his knowledge was so far from being adequate to the duties of his chair, that he had to prepare carefully the evening before the prelections of the following day. His indefatigable zeal and industry soon brought him abreast of the science as then taught; and his Memoir on the family of the Ranunculaceae procured his admission into the Academy of Sciences, and was incorporated in the Transactions of that body. In this memoir one sees the germs of that system of classification according to characters which he afterwards extended and applied to the whole vegetable kingdom. To illustrate the new method he could not have fixed upon a more safe or convenient order than that which he selected; and he used to say in after life that it was while engaged in preparing this memoir that he first felt himself truly a botanist. A wider field was presently opened up to him. The Jardin du Roi was at this time arranged according to the system of Tournefort. In 1774 the number of specimens had so greatly increased, that by the advice of Buffon it was determined to replant the garden. Jussieu profited by this occasion to send in to the authorities a scheme of his method, which was finally adopted. The general idea of it was undoubtedly borrowed from what was called the Catalogue de Trianon, which had been drawn up by his uncle Bernard. Many of the details, however, were so different, and the scheme itself was applied on such a large scale, that the credit of the whole fell to the younger Jussieu, especially as his uncle, now aged and infirm, and imbecile, had become a victim to the hereditary scourge of blindness. The new views were given to the world in a Memoir, entitled "Exposition d'un Nouvel Ordre de Plantes adopté dans la Demonstration du Jardin Royal," and embodied in the Transactions of the Academy of Sciences for 1774. Great as were the merits of the "Natural" system, Jussieu was himself well aware that as first evolved by him it was merely provisional. Accordingly, the next twelve years of his life, that is from 1775 to 1787, were entirely spent in testing it in his class lectures, and modifying it according to the new genera which were brought to him by travellers from every quarter of the globe. When at length, in 1778, he began to publish, so thoroughly had he matured his plan in its minutest details as well as its general outline, that he did not find it necessary to transcribe the whole work before consigning it to the press. Leaf by leaf his MS. was put in type as soon as it was written. The printing of the work lasted fifteen months, during all which time Jussieu, according to the testimony of his son, was never more than two sheets a-head of the compositors. The difficulty experienced in wringing either "copy" or "revises" out of his hands, and the elaborate care with which he corrected and often re-cast the proof-sheets, are dwelt upon by his biographers as sufficient evidence that he was really the author of his own work, and was not merely transcribing or translating into Latin his uncle's MS. notes, as was at one time alleged against him. Making due allowance for all this care, however, we are still surprised that the composition of the Genera Plantarum should have taken so long as it did. It only comprises some 2700 genera; and in the then state of botanical science could hardly have contained more. The botanical text-books of the present day contain from 9,000 to 10,000 genera. When at length the work appeared, it was at first very coldly received, and nowhere more so than in the author's native country. The artificial or sexual system of Linnæus had been adopted in all the schools, and had taken root so firmly that it was impossible at once to eradicate it. hurricane of revolution was likewise sweeping over France, and men were too busy with politics to spare time for deciding between rival systems of botany. In England and Germany it began, though slowly, to find favour with the learned few; and when order was at length restored in France, its merits secured its adoption as the text-book in most of the scientific schools. It was not, however, till about the year 1820 that the Jussieuan system came to be recognised and publicly taught everywhere in England and America as well as on the Continent. The leading feature of this, as of every other natural system is, that it brings together all those plants which are allied in all essential points of structure, and takes into account the true affinities of plants on a comparison of all their organs. Assuming that as the lowest species which has no cotyledon in its embryo, that as next higher in the scale which has one, and that as highest of all which has two, Jussieu divided plants into the three primary groups of Acotyledones, Monocotyledones, and Dicotyledones, under which he included fifteen classes. Of these classes one is Acotyledonous, three are Monocotyledonous, and eleven Dicotyledonous. The three Monocotyledonous classes are distinguished by the position of the stamens, whether inserted on the thalamus (hypogynous), attached to the calyx (perigynous), or to the ovary (epigynous). Dicotyledonous plants are divided into Apetalous (monochlamydeous)—plants having a calyx only; Monopetalous (gamopetalous)—plants having united petals; Polypetalous—plants having separate petals; and Diclinous—plants which are unisexual and incomplete; the last constitutes the fifteenth class, while the other ten classes of Dicotyledons, included in the three other divisions, are determined chiefly by the position of the stamens and the corolla in relation to the ovary. Under these classes he included 100 orders. A tabular view of Jussieu's "Natural" system is given in art. Botany, part ii., chap. 2.

When the Revolution broke out, Jussieu, very much against his own wishes, was drawn into its vortex. In 1790 he was made a member of the municipality of Paris, and was entrusted with the supervision of the hospitals and charities—an office which he held for two years. In 1793, when the Jardin du Roi was re-organised as the Museum of Natural History, Jussieu succeeded Daubenton as director and treasurer, and signalized his year of office by laying the foundation of what has since become one of the best, if not actually the best scientific library in Europe. From this time till 1820 he continued to enrich the Annales and Memoires of the museum with contributions, bearing chiefly on the orders, genera, and species of his own system. After that year the infirmities of old age and blindness disabled him from keeping abreast with the progress of the science to which he had himself given the strongest impulse. In 1826 he resigned his chair at the museum in favour of his son Adrian, to whom he transmitted the virtues as well as the talents of his family. The next ten years of his life were spent in dictating a new edition of the Genera Plantarum, in which all the recent discoveries were to be embodied. But his strength was not equal to the task, and he never got beyond the introduction, which, however, is itself sufficient to show that to the last he retained that union of knowledge and philosophy which places him at the head of all the botanists of France. While lingering over this last effort of his mind he was carried off after a short illness, September 17, 1836, in the eighty-ninth year of his age. Jussieu's life, long as it was, and embracing the stormiest era of French history, was a happy and a peaceful one. His temper, less austere than that of his uncle, was singularly equable; and the fierce attacks that were often levelled against him never drew from him an angry or even a harsh retort. To the last he retained undiminished the affection of his family and the respect of his friends.

JUSTICE-CLERK OF SCOTLAND. See SCOTLAND.