regulations which subjected him to privations and hardships not contemplated by the terms of his sentence; in behalf of himself and some others in like circumstances, he represented the case to George Williams, Esq. a magistrate of the county, residing in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, and requested his interference. Colonel Williams, who adheres somewhat resolutely in his exercise of authority to the ancient maxim, "the laws of England do in all cases favour liberty," felt that it was his duty immediately to write on the subject to the governor of the gaol; who justified himself by a reference to the rules before-mentioned. Other letters passed; and two from the colonel to Broadhurst; which being, according to rule, intercepted and opened, were deemed by the gaoler" of an objection"of able nature;" and by him laid before the magistrates, together with those which he had himself received. At the ensuing session they were produced, and having been read, they were made a matter of accusation against the worthy magistrate by the Mr. HULTON of Hulton, whose exploits at Manchester and at York are still fresh in the public recollection. Mr. Hulton moved, and with perfect consistency certainly, that the letters were insult

* It is at all times difficult to convey in a short space a faithful description of a series of letters, and these letters are of too great length to be introduced here. The newspapers have represented that "the purport of them all was to complain of the regulations of the gaol, and the conduct of the gaoler, in preventing letters and newspapers from being delivered to the prisoners. The letter to Nathan Broadhurst also tended to call in question the justice of the sentence under which he was confined." This tendency can, however, only be by implication;

ing to the whole magistracy of the county; that they were calculated to destroy all discipline in the gaol; and that copies be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the home department, and to the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster! which resolutions were carried unanimously! Sir Thomas D. Hesketh being in the chair.

After this exposition, a prisoner will probably hesitate, whatever inconvenience he may experience from the rules, before he ventures to make a formal complaint to the magistrates, or to prefer a bill of indictment, the merits of which are to be decided by a grand jury to which any of them are to belong!

It will be by no means irrevelant to contrast with this, the conduct of the same worshipful bench, in the same meeting, but in relation to another subject, as recorded in the newspapers. In the course of some discussion concerning the rules of the gaol, the Rev. Mr. Hornby expressed a wish to introduce into one of them a clause, declaring "that all communications between prisoners committed for trial and their solicitors, which had relation to such prisoners' defence, should be

as the passage referred to applies to the charge of which the prisoner was convicted. But any man may form his own judgment; for although these were as strictly private letters, and the sacred property of the writer, until delivered to the person to whom they were addressed, as any letters can be, the justices, by whose authority they were intercepted, without ceremony directed their publication: and from their edition they were copied into the Liverpool Mercury of 22nd September, where they may of course be found.

allowed to pass, as a matter of right."* COLONEL FLETCHER, who, although one of the magistrates present at the dreadful proceeding of the 16th August, seems to have had no idea that he can ever inhabit a gaol-immediately "objected to the word right; he considered that a person, on being committed to prison, had forfeited all his rights!"

The substance of Mr. Hornby's motion, it appears was however adopted; which proves that a majority of the meeting did not participate in the atrocious sentiment ascribed to Colonel Fletcher. But, after their formal and unanimous indignation at the endeavour of Colonel Williams to alleviate the rigour of imprisonment, we can have no reason to be surprised that that sentiment was heard without being pronounced an insult; that it was not represented to the Secretary of State, or to the Chancellor of the Duchy; and, that it did not receive, if we may trust the published report, the reprobation of any individual!

*One might wonder how it could be necessary to discuss such a proposition in a meeting of English justices! What says the great commentator on our laws?"This imprisonment is only for safe custody, and not for punishment; therefore, in this dubious interval between the commitment and trial, a prisoner ought to be used with the utmost humanity; and neither be loaded with needless fetters, nor subjected to other hardships, than such as are absolutely requisite for the purpose of confinement only." (B. 4. p. 300.) But some men are most remarkable for ignorance, where knowledge is most essential; and when ignorance happens to be associated with arrogance, a little matter would lead to a resolution, that the Commentaries themselves are insulting to the magistracy, and calculated to destroy all discipline and subordination both within and without the gaols!"

The object of thus publicly censuring and representing the conduct of Colonel Williams, was of course understood to be his removal from the commission of the peace; and a rumour was current, though it afterwards proved to be unfounded, that this was actually accomplished.

However ungracious such an object may be thought, the insult complained of, although the only cause assigned, might not be the only cause which led to its being entertained. The Colonel has on divers occasions differed from his brethren on the Bench, as to the expediency and propriety of the measures which they have adopted; and having twice remonstrated in vain against applications of the county rate to purposes to which he conceived it could not be legally applied, he appealed to the Court of King's Bench, where his objections were, in both cases, fully established. In one of these cases, the benefit being conferred on the county, an application was made for a re-imbursement of the costs out of the county rate; but it was refused by the magistrates, on the ground that they were incurred "without the authority of that Bench;" but having subsequently directed above 30007. from the same fund to be paid for barracks erected in different parts of the county, (for the erection of which, it may be remarked, it does not appear that any previous authority of that bench" had been obtained,) the Colonel has, notwithstanding, instituted a fresh process; which will, of course, restore this money also to the county.

In the mean time, further complaints reaching Colonel Williams from the gaol, farther letters were written by him, and intercepted by the gaoler, who proceeded without ceremony to open them; and finding in his perusal of one, some passage which was offensive to him, or which he was pleased to consider offensive, he laid a bill of indictment for a libel before the grand jury at the late Spring assizes, and by them "a true bill" was returned!"

Here again we see the magisterial jurors called into action in relation to a question arising out of their own regulations; for if these regulations had not led to complaints, the letter, containing the subject of this indictment, had never been written. But we are now to consider their fitness to inquire into the merits of this particular indictment, without reference to their magisterial character.

To this end it is necessary to ascertain the qualifications which the law requires in jurors; and these may be gathered from the following passages, derived from competent authorities. Lord Somers represents that jurors should be "lawful liege people of ripe age, not over aged or infirm, of good fame amongst their neighbours, free from all reasonable suspicion of any design, for themselves or others, upon the estates or lives of any suspected criminals, or quarrel or controversy with any of them; indifferent and impartial before they are admitted to be sworn: "Such as be next neighbours, most sufficient, and least suspicious." Hawkins, P. C. Book "He that is of a jury must

2. c. 25. sec. 22.