quated foppery of drefs, to imprefs the audience with awe, then caufing witneffes and jury to be fworn to truth and juftice, himself having officially fworn the fame-then caufing to be read a profecution against a man, charging him with having" wickedly and malicioufly written and published a certain falfe, wicked, and feditious book"-and having gone thro' all this with a fhew of folemnity, as if he faw the eye of the Almighty darting thro' the roof of the building like a ray of light, turn, in an inftant the whole into a farce, and, in order to obtain a verdict that could not otherwife be obtained, tell the jury, that the charge of "falfely, wickedly, and feditioufly, meant nothing; that truth was out of the queftion -that whether the perfon accufed fpoke truth or falsehood, or intended virtuoufly or wickedly, was the fame thing and finally conclude the wretched inquifitorial fcene, by ftating fome antiquated precedent, equally as abominable as that which is then acting, or giving fome opinion of his own, and falfely calling the one and the otherLaw. It was, moft probably, to fuch a judge as this that the moft folemn of all reproofs was given-" The Lord will fmite thee, thou whitened wall."

I now proceed to offer fome remarks on what is called a fpecial jury.-As to what is called a special verdict, I fhall make no other remark upon it. than that it is in reality not a verdict. It is an attempt on the part of the jury to delegate, or of the bench to obtain, the exercite of that right which is committed to the jury only.

With refpect to fpecial juries, I fhall ftate fuch matters as I have been able to colled, for I do not find any uniform opinion refpecting the mode of appointing them.

In the first place, this mode of trial is but of modern invention, and the origin of it, as I am told, is as follows:

Formerly, when difputes arofe between merchants, and were brought before a court, the cafe was, that the na

of their commerce, and the method

of keeping merchants' accounts, not being fufficiently understood by perfons out of their own line, it became neceffary to depart from the common mode of appointing juries, and to select such perfons for a jury, whofe practical knowledge would enable them to decide upon the cafe. From this introduction, fpecial juries became more general; but fome doubts having arifen as to their legality, an act was paffed in the 3d of Geo. II. to establish them as legal, and alfo to extend them to all cafes, not only between individuals, but in cafes where the government itself fhould be the profecutor. This moft probably gave rife to the fufpicion fo generally entertained of packing a jury; becaufe, by this act, when the crown, as it is called, is the profecutor, the mafter of the crown-office, who holds his office under the crown, is the perfon who either wholly nominates, or has great power in nominating the jury, and therefore it has greatly the appearance of the profecuting party fe lecting a jury.

The procefs is as follows:

On motion being made in court, by either the plaintiff or defendant, for a fpecial jury, the court grants it or not, at its own difcretion.

If it be granted, the folicitor of the party that applied for the fpecial jury, gives notice to the folicitor of the adverfe party, and a day and hour are appointed for them to meet at the office of the mafter of the crown-office. The mafter of the crown-office fends to the fheriff or his deputy, who attends with the theriff's book of frecholders. From this book forty-eight names are taken, and a copy thereof given to each of the parties; and ou a future day, notice is again given, and the folicitors meet a fecond time, and each ftrikes out twelve

names.

The lift being thus reduced from 48 to 24, the firft 12 that appear in court, and anfwer to their names, is the ipecial jury for that caufe: the first operation, that of taking the 48 names, is called nominating the jury; and the reducing them to 24 is called ftriking the jury.

Having thus ftated the general pro

cefs,

cefs, I come to particulars, and the firft queftion will be, how are the 48 names out of which the jury is to be ftruck, obtained from the theriff's book? for herein lies the principal ground of fufpicion, with refpect to what is underflood by packing of juries.

Either they must be taken by fome rule agreed upon between the parties, or by fome common rule known and eftablifhed before-hand, or at the difcretion of fome perfon, who, in fuch a cafe, ought to be perfectly difinterefted in the iffue, as well officially as otherwife.

In the cafe of merchants, and in all cafes between individuals, the mafter of the office, called the crown office, is officially an indifferent perfon, and as fuch may be a proper perfon to act between the partics, and prefent them with a lift of forty-eight names, out of which each party is to ftrike twelve. But the cafe affumes an entirely different character when the government itself is the profecutor. The mafter of the crownoffice is then an officer holding his office under the profecutor; and it is, therefore, no wonder that the fufpicion of packing juries fhould, in fuch cafes, have been fo prevalent.

This will apply with additional force when the prolecution is commenced against the author or publifher of fuch works as treat of reforms, and of the abolition of fuperfluous places and of fices, &c. becaufe in fuch cafes, every perfon holding an office fubject to that fufpicion becomes interested as a party; -and the office, called the crown-office, may, upon examination, be found to be of this defeription.

I have heard it afferted, that the mafter of the crown office is to open the sheriff's book as it were per hazard, and take thereout forty following names, to which the word merchant or efquire is affixed. The former of thefe are cerainly proper, when the cafe is between merchants, and it has reference to the origin of the cuftom, and to nothing elfe. As to the word efquire, every man is an efquire who pleafes to call himfelf efquire; and the fenfible part of mankind are leaving it off. But the

matter for enquiry is, whether there be any exifting law to direct the mode by which the forty-eight names fhall be taken, or whether the mode of that be merely cuftom which the office has created; or whether the selection of the forty-eight names be wholly at the difcretion and choice of the matter of the crown-office? One or other of the two latter appears to be the cafe, because the act already mentioned, of the 3d of George II. lays down no rule or mode, nor refers to any preceding law-but fays only, that the fpecial juries fhall hereafter be ftruck, "in fuch a manner as fpecial juries have been and are ufually ftruck."

This act appears to me to have been what is generally understood by a "deep take-in." It was fitted to the fpur of the moment in which it was paffed, 3d of George II. when parties rad high, and it ferved to throw into the hands of Walpole, who was then minifter, the management of juries in crown profecutions, by making the nomination of the forty eight perfons, from whom the jury was to be ftruck, follow the precedent established by cuftom between individuals, and by this means it flipt into practice with less fufpicion. Now the manner of obtaining fpecial juries through the medium of an officer of the government, such for inftance as a mafter of the crownoffice, may be impartial in the case of merchants, or other individuals, but it becomes highly improper and fufpicious in cafes where the government itfelt is one of the parties. And it must, upon the whole, appear a strange inconfiltency, that a government would keep one officer to commence profecutions, and another officer to nominate the forty-eight perfons from whom the jury is to be truck, both of whom are officers of the civil lift, and yet continue to call this by the pompous name of the glorious Right of the Trial by Jury!

In the cafe of the king againft Jordan, for publifhing Kights of Man, the attorney general moved for the appointment of a fpecial jury, and the mafter of the crown office nominated

the