The Sun.
London, England, 1838-10-17 00:00:00

ALTERATION IN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM.

The Grand Jury having been sworn,
The CIIAITtMAN, after briefly explaining to them the nature
of the duties they were called upon to discharge, said it was a
question whether some regulation could not and ought not to
be adopted, by which the duties of a Grand Jury would un-
dergo considerable alterations, and by which their labours
would be greatly lessened. Those labours at present were so
onerous, that he almost wondered that some general complaint
had not been made on the subject by the gentlemen of the
count. According to the present system, there were sum-
moned annually, in the county of Middlesex alone, no less
than thirty-six Grand Juries, and on each occasion more than
the number required to serve, namely, forty-eight persons,
when only twenty-three were wanted, making a total of
upwards of two thousand persons, freeholders, &c., of the
county, who were summoned every year to serve on Grand
Juries, the principal part of whose duty was merely to go over
the ground which the magistrates of the county had done
before, namely, inquiring and ascertaining i❑ each case
brought before them whether there was sufficient evidence to
warrant the accused parties being sent for trial before a Jury
of their countrymen for the offence which was alleged against
them. A question was at present under the grave considera-
tion of the authorities of the county, whether some alteration
might not be made in the Grand Jury system by which the
ends of justice might be promoted, while at the same time the
labours of Grand Juries would be very considerably dimi-
nished. One great objection to the present Grand Jury sys-
tem was the secrecy observed with regard to the proceedings
before that tribunal, the effect of which was, that in many
cases the ends of justice were defeated, and for which the
Grand Jury were improperly blamed. Supposing a rich man
were charged with en offence, and between the time of his
commitment for trial and the bill against him being
submitted to a Grand Jury for consideration, he, or some per-
sot► on his behalf, tampered with the witnesses, and succeeded
in inducing them to keep back from the Grand Jury a con-
siderable and most material part of the evidence they gave
when they were examined before the Magistrate by whom the
charge was originally investigated, such a person could not
he indicted for perjury, because the proceedings before a
Grand Jury being conducted in secret, no evidence could be
given as to what was stated by him when giving evidence be-
fore that body; and though he (the Chairman) might have
before him the deposition of that witness which afforded him
the most conclusive evidence of the guilt of the accused, yet
by such conduct on the part of a witness as he had described,
the most notorious offender might escape from justice, and in-
stead of the perjured witness being exposed and punished as
he ought to be, he escaped altogether, and the public were
led to form the erroneous opinion that the Grand Jury had
not done their duty, and that by some unaccountable neglect
on their part the guilty party had gone altogether unpu-
nished. He then stated that it was necessary that twelve of
them should agree in opinion before they returned any bill as
a true one.

A Grand Juryman here observed--You mean, Sir, in ca.
pital cases only. That was the rule when I last served on a
Grand Jury.
The CHAIRMAN said the observation he had made applied to
every case, whether capital or not.
The Grand Jury then retired to their room. '