The Sun.
London, England, 1850-10-12 00:00:00

In consequence of the last-mentioned provision, it
isjanything but improbable that the scheme will be
carried out in a manner worthy of its commencement,
in a manner commensurate with a project calculated
to hasten in a wonderful way the progress of civili-
zation.

"It is better that one hundred guilty persons I
should escape than that one innocent person should
suffer unmerited punishment," is a legal axiom which
has been long and generally approved, and which
has never yet been directly controverted or im-
peached. In every criminal investigation the pre-
siding judge instructs the jury that if they entertain
any reasonable doubt they are to give the benefit of
it to the prisoner. They are cautioned that " suspi-
cion is not proof," . that no person can be
required to establish his innocence, that he
cannot even be called upon for his defence until
a prima fucie case has been made out against him,
sufficient, if unrebutted, to satisfy twelve men duly
sworn " a true verdict to return, according to the
evidence," of his guilt. Nay, according to the con-
sti'utional theory, the inquiry must take place on
two separate occasions, before distinct juries, before
any British citizen can be treated as guilty of any
offence. It is true that investigation by the grand
jury being carried on in secret, without any
judicial assistance, has degenerated into a species
of farce, which affords but little protection to
innocence, and is but too frequently made the instru-
ment of extortion or oppression. But this is owing
t) the abuses which have sprung into the practice, and
not to the institution itself. It has unfortunately be-
come the habit of grand juries to assume that there is
sufficient in every case to warrant a further inquiry.
They forget that the object ,for which they had as-
sembled was to prevent persons against whom tbere
was not a fair presumption of guilt from being sub-
jected to the expense, annoyance, and exposure
inseparable from a trial in open court, that
they were to shield the characters and re-
putations of their fellow-citizens from what
might be considered undeserved odium. The desire
in every case, however, appears to be to get through
the greatest amount of business in the shortest pos-
sible space of time, to find bills in cases which it was
morally impassible they could have at all investigated.
Some three or four minutes may he devoted to each
bill, one hundred of which will be got through in a
single day. The only effect of the hasty examina-
tion that takes place is, to school the principal
witnesses—none others are examined—and to prepare
them for their appearance before the judge and petty
jury. For this reason it is, perhaps, more injurious
than beneficial to the parties about to be placed on
trial, and a strong argument is afforded to those who
demand its total abolition.

But it is not because abuses have crept into the
administration of this time-honoured institution, once
an efficient safeguard to the liberty of the subject,
that we would consent to its annihilation. No, with
all its faults, trial by jury is worth preserving; and
not even the preliminary investigation by the " Grand
Inquest" should be done away with. It might
be desirable that they should be assisted by some
person acquainted with law, who would act as asses-
sor, to advise in doubtful cases. It might be well if
' judges in their opening charges would dell a little
more on the nature of the important duties confided
to their charge, and the propriety of performing them
with care and deliberation, instructing them that it is
not a mere formality, but an integral portion of the
precautions wisely established for the protection of the
people, that twelve grand jurors on oath must find
a true bill before any man can be placed on his
trial, and that their decision must be confirmed by
the unanimous verdict of twelve of their peers before
punishment can be inflicted. With a little care and
attention in these respects grand juries would be-
come, as they ought to be, valuable guarantees for
the protection of the people. They constitute, how-
ever, but a fractional part of the great palladium of
British freedom—the trial by jury—and their sur-
render would only prove the signal for a fierce on-
slaught on the remainder. It is an oupost
that must be won before the citadel it-
self can be endangered by any formidable
assault, and therefore we call upon the chosen repre-
sentatives of the people to resist strenuously any in-
sidious suggestions that may be offered for its sur-
render, or the extension of the summary jurisdiction
of magistrates, which, as we have lately shown, is
the tendency of recent legislation, and the desire of
many who would, if possible, reverse the constitu-
tional maxim with which this article opens. Every
formidable violation of law is seized on as a pretence for
the. adoption cf additional precautions speciously alleged
to be against crime, but really against public
freedom, which wculd establish a magisterial and po-
lice despotism, introduce the passport system, and
prevent Englishmen from passing freely throughout the
length and breadth of their native land. The law may
nominally be against tramps and vagran's, but, if it
be once introduced, many persons travelling about
their lawful business will be seriously inconvenienced.
They will have no protection against police es-
pionage and magisterial folly. It was but last
week that a person was arrested in the
city of London for being in the possession of goods
which it subsequently appeared he had fairly pur-
chased, and the presiding alderman gravely told him
that a remand for a few days could "do no great
harm." If the excellent justice had himself ex-
perienced the pleasure of a few days' incarceration
he might possibly alter his mind, and not venture on
such flippant assertions.
None can regret more than ourselves the melan-
choly catastrophe at Frimley, by which an amiable
and pious clergyman was suddenly deprived of life
by these ruffians,
who went to plunder, and consum-
mated their-guilt by murder ; but, although we deeply
lament this sanguinary event, we cannot see that the
family of poor Joliet GEARY, who fell a victim to
police brutality, are not entitled to equal sympathy,
or why steps shoald not be taken by the authorities
to discover and bring to justice the unknown com-
panion of the gallant Sergeant Busueen. Because
one deplorable transaction has occurred, it is more
than hinted that Englishmen manifest an undue jea-
lousy for personal freedom, and that " while we
watch the law and its enforcers, we not unfrequently
allow the lawbreakers perfect impunity." To this
we would answer in the words of the lamented Ro-