loped by so able and so faithful a master as the Lord Chancellor Somers. The English constitution has been well described as 66 a system of checks and balances.' It is obvious that such a system must cease to produce its intended results, when the functions of the several parts are confounded, and the integrity of one is superseded by the predominating influence of that which it was intended to controul. The representative being designed as a check on the executive power, it was wisely ordained by the Act of Settlement that," no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons. By subsequent enactments this was repealed; ministers and their minions now swarm in the House of Commons; and the records of the Courts, and of Parliament, declare that the gurdianship of the public purse is become a subject of derision! If a similar fate has not attended the jury system, (the constitutional check to the judicial power,) it is not because the principles on which it was founded have been more steadily adhered to. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that these would not be recognised as the distinguishing properties of modern doctrine; an anxiety is much more conspicuous to uphold and to enlarge the exercise of authority, and to restrain what it is the fashion to denominate, the licentiousness of the people." 66 The subject of the present enquiry becomes, therefore, peculiarly interesting and important, for "law on one side is the backsword of justice;" and the people who have their accusations to prefer, have at least an equal claim to the protection and the aid of the law. At present, however, do they enjoy an equal protection? Is the law equally ready to promote their demands for justice? Let the proceedings, which arose out of the memorable outrage at Manchester answer. The accusers of the people, on the contrary, are armed with weapons of offence which they employ without apparent obstruction, and often with ruinous effects. Bills of indictment, informations ex officio-and the sabre-inflicting fines and imprisonment, wounds and death! If these are justly inflicted, there can be no cause of complaint; but it has been well observed by Sir William Blackstone that "next to doing right, the great object in the administration of public justice should be to give public satisfaction; (Book 3. p. 391.) and the public are entitled to know that they are justly inflicted. To this end they ought to enjoy the substantial benefits of that institution which our ancestors erected for the security of our lives and liberties; foreseeing "both their dangers from the inalice and passion, that might cause some of private condition to accuse others falsely in the courts of justice; and the great hazards of worthy and eminent men's lives from the malice, emulation, and ill designs of corrupt ministers of state, or otherwise potent, who might commit the most odious of murders in the form and course of justice; either by corrupting of judges, as dependent upon them for their honour and great revenue, or by bribing and hiring men of depraved principles, and desperate fortunes to swear falsely against them."* In reading over the lists of county grand juries which are published at every assizes, the frequent recurrence of the same names is very remarkable. There is no palpable reason to suppose that men duly qualified for the office are so rare, as to make it necessary for a few to discharge the duty biennially, annually, or still more frequently; and as it generally happens that men complain of hardship when often called into the unrequited service of the public, while their neighbours are overlooked, we may infer in the absence of all complaint, and of all explanation, that some advantage, real or supposed, present or prospective, results as an equivalent for attendant expense and trouble. But be this as it may, the fact becomes still more questionable when we also find, that individuals composing a selection from the county magistracy are constantly placed on the lists. To ascertain the extent of the practice in a single county, I have analyzed the lists for Lancashire during the last six years; and i appears that on twelve grand juries, consisting each of from twenty to twenty-three persons, and requiring, had they been all different individuals, 266, that * See 1, John Hargreaves, of Omered, Esq. has served on 7 7 16 ... 266 121 Individuals thus supplying the places of or, to place the fact in a more striking light, 58 supplying for 203! And of these fiftyeight, thirty-five are magistrates; and some others are sons or connections of magis trates. It is evident that in these respects the spirit of the institution has been altogether lost sight of. Its beauty and excellence depend on the unquestioned impartiality, the perfect indifference with which the lists are formed; for, if a doubt arises in the commencement of a proceeding, before it is brought to a close, the doubt may ripen into suspicion; and the decisions of juries must cease to command that confiding reverence which, is at once the indispensable and the never-failing attendant, of a pure administration of justice. A constant, though *regulated alternation of names *This, as applied to special and common juries, is recognized in the Statute Book. The act, 3 Geo. 2 6. 25. after declaring in the preamble that "many evil practices have been used in corrupting of jurors returned for the trial of issues," and that "many neglects and abuses have happened in making up the lists," &c. enacts that "no person shall be returned as jurors to serve on trials, at any assizes, or nisi prius, or at any great sessions in Wales, or at the sessions for the counties palatine of Lancaster, Chester, and Durham, who have served within the space of one year before, in the county of Rutland, or four years in the county of York, or of two years in any other county not being a county of a city or town." By the 4 Geo. 2. c. 7..the rule is altered as it regards Middlesex to "two terms.” might defy the efforts of premeditated slander; but the same men, continually acting as jurors, partake of the character of a standing commission; are liable to all the objections which juries were intended to correct; and in reality require the very controul which, it is presumed, they are summoned to exercise. And this argument applies with redoubled force, when the individuals composing the standing commission are magistrates; for, as it is a part of the regular business of jurors to rejudge questions which magistrates have already decided, so magistrates sitting on juries, must often be called upon to rejudge their own acts;* an anomaly, which however it may be overlooked in the course of modern practice, few men will have the hardihood to justify. So closely, however, has this anomaly united itself with the ordinary administration of the law, that it is by no means uncom By the first of these acts, the justices at the Midsummer sessions are required to issue their warrant to the high constables. requiring them to issue forth their precepts to the petty constables to return true lists of all persons in their respective constablewicks, qualified to serve on juries, with their titles and additions. If the loyal gentlemen, who are entrusted with the commission of the peace, enforce these regulations with as much rigour as they manifest on some other occasions, they are a vast deal less noisy about it; and if they do not, it might be beneficial to remind them practically of the penalties. Nor should the sheriffs. be forgotten. * It is a good ground of challenge against a common or a special juryman that he belonged to the grand jury who found the bill of indictment; yet he might not belong to the majority who concurred in the finding. The objection, therefore, to the committing magistrate is much more conclusive-there can be no question as to his joining in the commitment for which he hus signed a warrant. |