be liber homo, that is, not only a freeman, and not bond, but also one that hath such freedom of mind, as he stands indifferent as he stands unsworn." Coke 2 Inst. 234.

And now we may refer to the list of the Grand Jury by whom the bill of indictment was found against Colonel Williams.

The name which first presents itself is that of the foreman, Sir Thomas D. Hesketh, Bart. whom we recollect presiding at the meeting of unanimous censurers of the now criminally accused Colonel Williams. Then we have Ralph Fletcher, Esq. of Hollins, who has also been commemorated. It is unnecessary to

seek farther.

After what has been related, these gentlemen can scarcely be considered "free from all reasonable suspicion of quarrel or controversy with any of the suspected criminals." It is not necessary to say, nor to insinuate, that they have in fact been actuated by malice, or by any other unworthy motive; the law, which was not framed for this particular case, intended to guard against possible wrong; and therefore views all men, so circumstanced, as unfit to belong to Grand Juries; because malicious men, pursuing "their own quarrels and private revenges," may abuse the trust, and influence their fellow jurors to second their designs, to the great injury of public justice; and in this case, such men might be induced to promote a trumpery accusation for any unworthy purpose---merely to persecute; or in the hope of laying a foundation for the removal of one from the com

mission of the peace, who is not given to surrender his own honest judgment, in order that he may conform to the expectations of influence or presumption.*

But at the assizes held at Lancaster, immediately after that transaction which filled all England "with shame, grief, and indignanation,' a question was brought before the court in the shape of a challenge, which will afford farther illustration, and which is entitled to more particular notice, because such cases very seldom come under judicial cognizance. It will be best in the first place to insert a report of what passed; and I take

Since the foregoing was written, the annual General Sessions of the Peace has been held at Preston; and I copy the following passage relating to this subject from the published Report of the proceedings :-"Some time was occupied in con◄ sidering a correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Lace, the attorney for Col. Williams, and Mr. Higgin, the governor of Lancaster castle, relative to an application on the part of the former to have free access to some individuals in the castle, with a view to examine them on points necessary to the defence of Col. Williams, in a prosecution instituted against him for a libel on the governor. It was finally determined to refer the matter to the visiting Justices of Lancaster castle, with a recommendation from this court, that Mr. Lace be allowed such conference as he pleases with any of the prisoners, in the presence of some one of the magistrates."

It would seem from this, that the governor, at whose suit, be it remembered, this prosecution was instituted, had refused access to the prisoners for the purpose in view! and that the magistrates recommend that such access be allowed in presence of one of the body of magistrates; but refer the matter to the visiting magistrates. And why is the presence of any magistrate thus obtruded? Why is an accused man to be compelled to expose the points of his defence to one, who may, if he is disposed to do so, apprise the prosecutor, possibly to the great disadvantage of the accused? Will Mr. Lace submit to subject his client to this? It should be remarked too, that two of the visiting Justices are said to be connected, by marriage, with the family of Mr. Higgin! viz. Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Housman.

that which appeared in the Times of the 6th Sept. 1819. It is as follows:

Lancaster, Thursday, Sept. 2.

CROWN COURT.

We never experienced greater difficulty in getting into a court of justice, than in getting into this court several minutes before the Judges took their seats. Every seat was crowded, and elegantly dressed ladies not only occupied the gallery appropriated to witnesses, but part even of the grand jury box. While puzzled to account for this unusual curiosity, we happened to observe the grand attraction. Mr. Hunt sat immediately behind the counsel's seat, and before the grand jury box. Mr. Harmer sat on his right hand, and Mr. Pearson on his left.

In calling over the names of the Justices of the county, the following gentlemen answered to their names, and thus furnished evidence that they were to form the Grand Jury : *--

+LORD STANLEY, Foreman.

+John Blackburne, Esq.
+Edw. Bootle Wilbraham, Esq.
+ Edmund Hornby, Esq.
William Blundell, Esq.
+ Thomas Clayton, Esq.
Robert Townley Cross, Esq.
James Deardon, Esq.
John Entwistle, Esq.
William Fox, Esq.
+John Hargreaves, Esq.
Robert Holt, Esq.

John Hornby, Esq.

James Hargreaves, Esq.
Robert Legh, Esq.
+ Thomas Lyon, Esq.
Thomas Lister Parker, Esq.
S. Philips, Esq.

+Robert Townley Parker, Esq.
James Shuttleworth, Esq.
James Starkie, Esq.

Peregrine Edw. Townley, Esq.
Daniel Wilson, Esq.

Those marked (†) are magistrates.-Whether this Jury was summoned with that indifference which the law enjoins, is a question which may now be left to the decision of others;-indifference of public opinion is more conspicuous. The circumstances in which Lord Stanley stood would otherwise have prevented his being called upon. His Lordship has, to be sure, performed the part of autumnal foreman for a number of years in succession; and it may possibly be thought that we cannot do without him. But the Sheriff could not be ignorant that questions would come before the Grand Jury originating in the late blood-stained transaction at Manchester; and that the Lord Lieutenant had, to a certain degree, identified himself with one of the parties, by submitting to be the medium by whom the thanks of Government were conveyed to them. I am aware it has since been said, that his Lordship did not intend to be otherwise than neutral; and that he could not avoid performing the ministerial duties of his office. Why, then, the duties of his office destroyed his neutrality; and his son, by consequence, participates in the exception, to which his Lordship (had the question applied to him) would inevitably have been liable.

But Lord Derby "could not avoid" transmitting the thanks to Manchester. And why so? Oh! "he would have been disgraced!" Yes, as the venerable Earl Fitzwilliam was disgraced! He would have been deprived of his Lieutenancy, and doubly honoured by every man in the nation, even by those who advised his disgrace. But in that case (in which his Lordship might have argued that he was influenced by a mere wish to avoid appearing decidedly to countenance the transaction referred to) there would probably have been no occasion to discuss the fitness of Lord Stanley to sit on this Grand Jury. It is pretty obvious that he would not have been summoned !

When their names were again called, in order to be sworn, Mr. Hunt rose and spoke to this effect:-My Lord, I wish to address your Lordship with an observation at this stage. My name is Hunt. I intend to prefer bills of indictment before the Grand Jury for capital felonies committed in this county. The relations of persons so accused ought not to be members of the Grand Jury, before whom these bills are to be laid. I heard names called of persons related to those against whom I am to lay bills of indictment. I submit, that those who are related by ties of blood or marriage, are very improper persons to inquire into charges of felony, of cutting and maiming with intent to kill, and of murder.

Mr. Baron Wood.-I can hear nothing at present upon that subject.

Mr. Hunt. The thing is, my Lord, novel and unprecedented in this country. I believe no precedent can be found in the criminal records in England. But in Ireland such proceedings have been frequent; and Mr. Baron George, at Trim, laid it down, that none connected with the accused by marriage or consanguinity could sit upon the Grand Jury. Now Mr. Wilbraham Egerton is related by marriage to Mr. Hulton. (The Clerk of Arraigns here said that there was no such name called.) Mr. Bootle Wilbraham is related to one of the parties. I therefore protest against his acting, and submit whether he ought not, from delicacy, to decline acting, if no law compels him.

Mr. Baron Wood.-There is a great variety of other bills to inquire into, and no objection can be made to Mr. Wilbraham respecting them. He can withdraw when your bills are inquired into.

Mr. B. Wilbraham.-My Lord, may I say a few words?
Mr. Baron Wood. Surely,

Mr. B. Wilbraham.-After the singular and unprecedented

manner

Mr. Baron Wood.-Certainly it is so.

Mr. B. Wilbraham-in which I have been mentioned, I feel myself called upon to say, that although it did not enter into my apprehension that any bills of this kind were to be inquired into, yet, in consequence of observations which I felt it my duty to make, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions at Liverpool, I resolved to take no part in inquiries connected with. these transactions; and I appeal to the noble foreman whether I did not say to him, that I should think it my duty to retire. I conceive myself equally competent to inquire into those matters as into any others; yet I thought it better to take no part in the inquiry. I am more nearly related to another of the gentlemen alluded to, who is my nepbew, than to the gentleman named. I beg your Lordship's pardon for having offered these observations.

Lord Stanley. Although it must be perfectly unnecessary, I

beg to add my testimony to this conversation; and to say further, that I stated in reply, that it was utterly impossible for him to know what evidence was to be produced; and that he ought to attend and hear the evidence, and retire afterwards, if he thought proper.

Mr. Baron Wood.-He should retire only on inquiring into the evidence on those bills.

Those whose names we have given having then been sworn, and the royal proclamation having been read,

Mr. Baron Wood charged the Grand Jury.

Now certainly the first impression produced, by a perusal of this report, is, that the learned Judge, as well as the individual implicated, felt that there was something wrong in making the challenge; "after the singular and unprecedented manner." "Certainly it is so." And yet, on the slightest reflection, the propriety as well as the necessity must appear to be acknowledged in the understanding by which Mr. Wilbraham's removal from the jury was evaded. But we have more difficulty in reconciling the understanding itself with that beautiful theory of our law as described by Lord Somers. It will be found, that great stress is laid on a pure and unsuspected panel; and the oath which binds every juryman "diligently to inquire, and true presentment to make, of ALL such articles, matters and things as shall be given him in charge," is spoken of as an obligation of peculiar solemnity and importance; since "the reputation, the fortunes, and the lives of Englishmen, depend upon the conscientious performance of their duty" by the jury. But we see

nothing of a juryman retiring: it is no where explained how a man, who has bound himself by a solemn oath to perform the whole of a