their mischiefs and dangers by wicked, lawless, and injurious men; to be advising how to right his wronged subjects in general, if the public safety be hazarded by treasons of any kind, or their relations snatched from them by murderers, or any way destroyed by malicious conspirators in the form of law;" if "the King, as well as all the officers of justice, are, by their several oaths, obliged, in their respective capacities, to perform it;' if "they are bound to give their assistance to find out offenders, and the King's attorney is, by his oath, to prosecute them; if he be required," this strange inertness on the part of these authorities becomes itself an important branch of inquiry. Not merely the dreadful occurrences of the 16th of August, as they took place in the face of day, but amid the confusion of the outraged multitude, are to be ascertained; but "whether there were accessories, who, being absent at the time of the crime committed, yet procured, counselled, or commanded others to commit the crime;" or who have subsequently "given such assistance to the felons, as to hinder their being apprehended, tried, and punished!"* and how it has happened, that they, who are so prone to prosecute for the undefined and undefinable offence of libel,-words, animadverting (and perhaps most justly) on men in power, have taken no cognizance of this slaughter of the king's subjects! These are matters on which the public must be satisfied: sooner or later inquiry must take * See Blackstone, Book 4, C. 3. "of Principals and Accessories."

place for this enormous wrong we must have a remedy: no Englishman can feel himself secure from similar violence, until he has obtained this indispensable evidence, that the law is still existing, and will extend to all its equal protection!

Nor is the evil attending the present formnation of grand juries (great as in that view it is) confined to the administration of justice. The persons holding the office of Justice of the Peace (to which, a service on the grand jury would seem occasionally to be a probation) are "generally selected by the prince, or such as enjoy the highest offices in the state," to whom a decided disposition to support their line of politics is so indispensable, that few, who do not entertain it, are entrusted with the commission; and of those few (with now and then a solitary exception) the opposition is of a very inoffensive nature. The consequence is, that grand juries, participating in the same character, are sometimes led into measures which are utterly inconsistent with any legitimate objects of their attendance, and which undoubtedly would be more becoming in a political association. As one example, I here insert copies of documents issued by the grand jury of Cheshire, in the autumn of 1819; the latter affording a fair specimen of what were sent forth by the grand juries of many other counties at the same period.

COUNTY PALATINE OF CHESTER.

The following resolutions have been unanimously passed by the Grand Jury of the county palatine of Chester:

"We, the Grand Jury of the county palatine of Chester, at the Assizes holden at Chester, the 1st day of September, 1819, have great satisfaction in expressing our high sense of the great obligation which the country owes to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent's Cheshire Yeomanry, and particularly for the zeal and promptitude with which they so numerously mustered on a late occasion. And as all accounts concur in attributing to them the honour of performing their late arduous services at Manchester with the greatest firmness, temper, and moderation, we beg that Col. Sir John Fleming Leicester, Bart. Lieut.Colonel Townshend, and the Officers and Non-commissioned Officers and Privates, will accept our unanimous thanks and acknowledgments for the same.

"Resolved, that the Thanks to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent's Cheshire Yeomanry, unanimously voted, be inserted in all the county papers, and in two of the London papers.

"JOHN THOMAS STANLEY, Foreman, "Grand Jury Room, Chester-castle, Sept. 2."

"COUNTY PALATINE OF CHESTER.

"We, the Grand Jury of the county palatine of Chester, at the Assizes holden at Chester, on the 1st day of September, 1819, feel it incumbent at this time to declare our indignation at the machinations of artful and itinerant demagogues, who disseminate papers of the most dangerous and seditious tendency at public meetings with freedom in their mouths, and fraud and plunder in their hearts, employ the most inflammatory language, insidiously inculcated, under the specious veil of reform, hatred and contempt of our constitution, and instigate the ignorant and unwary even to exert physical force (that is violence and open arms) for the enforcement of their visionary claims, at once useless to themselves, destructive of the rights and property of their fellow-subjects, and involving the whole country in one general ruin.

"Nor can we refrain from declaring our disgust and horror at the odious and blasphemous publications poured forth throughout the country, in which the Holy Scriptures are held up to derision, reviled, and scoffed at, and audaciously denounced to the people as false, with the malignant intention of eradicating from their minds all moral checks, and all the hopes and comforts to be derived from religion; but with the most serious and peculiar anxiety and detestation, we contemplate the unremitting exertions to poison the minds of the rising generation with the same borrid and detestable doctrines.

"We, therefore, strongly impressed with the excellence of our constitution, protecting all ranks and degrees of society, are firmly resolved by every means in our power, to enforce the due execution of the laws against the seditious and disaffected, and

against all who, either by their acts, or otherwise, endanger the public peace and safety of the realm.

"Resolved, that the declaration now produced, and unanimously adopted, be inserted in all the county papers, and in two of the London papers.

"JOHN THOMAS STANLEY, Foreman. "Grand Jury-room, Chester-castle, Sept. 2."

The first of these documents will sufficiently remind us of that terrible event which had then recently agitated the nation from the north to the south; and the intention of both we may reasonably presume was, in the first place, as far as possible, to counteract and control the voice of the people, now strenuously exerted in every direction to demand investigation and redress; and, secondly, to afford some countenance to those thanks which the ministers transmitted with so much speed to the magistrates of Manchester, for that "promptitude" which was manifested by military execution! If the gentleman composing this grand jury, conscientiously viewed the events referred to in the light supposed, no one will question their right as individuals, publicly to express such opinions; though it would, doubtless, have been more reconcilable with candour and fair dealing to state facts, than to impute motives; of the existence of which they have certainly advanced no semblance of proof. But they had no right to pervert an influence, with which they were entrusted for a specific object, embracing the benefit, and depending on the cordial sympathy of the whole community, to the partial purpose of supporting ministers and accused magistrates.

And, reverting to the original question, let us mark the effect of these resolutions on the character of their proceedings as jurymen. They proclaim their "indignation at the machinations of artful and itinerant demagogues, &c." and their determination "by every means in their power to enforce the due execution of the laws against the seditious and disaffected;" and the public are to regard this as recorded evidence of the indifference and impartiality with which they returned "a true bill against the "itinerant demagogue," Joseph Harrison, for "sedition!"

While grand juries can be found who are thus conformable to the views of men in authority, it is somewhat extraordinary that Attorneys General should deem it expedient to have recourse to the power, which they almost uniformly exercise in cases of libel, of prosecuting by information. To this process an odium attaches, which it can never , be free from, so long as the genuine principles of English liberty are understood; and which most men, having an option, would gladly avoid. But how much is it to be lamented, that an institution intended and calculated to effect such important benefits, should so have lost its controling energy, that whether it is employed or not, should, on any occasion, have become a matter of option, or a question of form!

It will be evident, however, to the attentive reader of the ensuing treatise, that to such a condition this institution cannot have been reduced, without an alarming encroach

E