ted the
prisoner policemen for perjury: these persons were discharged by the
attorney-general, and established again as constables. Their oaths had
already produced several capital convictions, and they became qualified
to accuse and convict the most upright men. The ignorant police agents
considered that the successful prosecution of any person, regarded by
their officers with hatred, would entitle them to benefits; and even the
prisoners in service discriminated between those whom they might accuse
with impunity, and such as were protected by their connections. Nor was
this all: in the height of political excitement, a prisoner was arrested
in the neighbourhood of Mr. Gregson's dwelling, who avowed his intention
to assassinate that gentleman, in the expectation of a reward.

The affair of Mr. Bryan increased the anxiety of the colony to obtain
trial by jury, independent of the court and the influence of the
executive. By the custom of England, this privilege could only be
suspended by martial law, when the ordinary courts were closed: wherever
the authority of the crown was recognised, the accused was entitled to
trial by his peers. Nothing could be more alien from the habits of
Englishmen, than to lodge the functions of grand jury in the hands of an
officer of the crown, or commit life or liberty to the verdict of a
military jury. A paramount necessity required the practice for a time;
but a change was delayed, by the hesitation of the government, long
after the colonies contained a body of freemen.

The decision of Judge Forbes, instanced in a former page, which
determined that the common law right remained with the session of
magistrates, had been acted on for a time. Emancipists sat on these
juries, and exulted in the privilege. Their press, in publishing the
list, distinguished the members of their body by affixing stars (*) to
their names. The act of parliament (1828) set aside the interpretation
of the judge; but when it took away the common law right, it gave power
to the crown to authorise the institution of juries, at the discretion
of colonial legislatures. Thus an ordinance entitling to trial by jury
in civil cases, was established in New South Wales (1829). The chief
justice strongly favored the eligibility of emancipists, who were three
times more numerous than the immigrant population. The non-official
members of the council were generally opposed to their admission; but
the measure was carried by ten