’Tis said, “This power is in the court as a right of resistance is in the people, as the people have a power superior to the prerogative of the prince, though no written or express law for it; so of necessity though no statute directs it, and it may seem to overturn the greatest security men have for their liberties, yet the court has a power of dissolving grand juries, if they refuse to find or present as the court shall direct.”

Pray let us consider how well this concludes.

The people may do anything in defence of their lives, their religion and liberties, and consequently resistance is lawful, therefore an inferior court a bene placito judge may——­Monstrous absurdity.

Another, I am sorry I can’t say more modest argument to support it is this.—­

“Considering,” say they, “grand juries, it is but reasonable a discretionary power of dissolving them should be lodged in the judges.”

By the words “considering grand juries,” I must understand considering their understandings, their fortunes or their integrity, for from a want of one or more of those qualifications must arise the reason of such a discretionary power in the judges.

Though I shall not urge it as far as I could, I will venture to say the argument is at least as strong the other way—­considering the judges.—­

First as to their understandings, it must be confessed the benches are infinitely superior to the lower professors of the law:  Yet surely it can’t give offence to say the gentlemen of the several counties have understandings sufficient to discharge the duty of grand jurymen—­If want of fortune be an objection to grand jurymen, a pari ratione, it is an objection to some other men.—­Besides, that the fact is not true, for in their circuits, no judge goes into any county where he does not meet at least a dozen gentlemen returned upon every grand jury, every one of whom have better estates than he himself has—­And these not during pleasure, which last consideration, saves me the trouble of shewing the weakness of the objection in the third qualification.

“Ay.  But it was a necessary expedient to keep out Wood’s brass.”

Are the properties of the commons of this kingdom better secured by the knight-errantry of that day?  In the name of common sense, what are we to believe?  Has the undaunted spirit, the tremendous voice of ------ frightened Wood and his accomplices from any further attempts?  Or rather has not the ready compliance of ------ encouraged them to further trials?  The officers and attendants of his court may tremble when he frowns, but who else regards it more than they do one of Wood’s farthings.

“There is no comparison,” says another, “between the affair of Sir W.
Scroggs and this of ------.  Sir W. discharged a grand jury because they
were about to present the Duke of York for being a Papist, but ------
discharged the grand jury for not presenting a paper he recommended to
them to present as scandalous, (and in which, I say, he was a party
reflected on.)”

I agree there is a mighty difference, but whom does it make for?