“By a _summary_ proceeding, I mean such as is directed by several Acts of Parliament (for the common law is a stranger to it, unless in the case of contempts) for the conviction of offenders, and the inflicting of certain penalties created by those Acts of Parliament. In these there is no intervention of a jury, but the party accused is acquitted or condemned by the suffrage of such person only as the statute has appointed for his judge,—an institution designed professedly for the greater ease of the subject, by doing him speedy justice, and by not harassing the freeholders with frequent and troublesome attendances to try every minute offence. But it has of late been so far extended as, if a check be not timely given, to threaten the disuse of our admirable and truly English trial by jury, unless only in capital cases; for— “I. Of this summary nature are all trials of offences and frauds contrary to the laws of the _excise_ and other branches of the _revenue_, which are to be inquired into and determined by the commissioners of the respective departments, or by justices of the peace in the country; officers who are all of them appointed and removable at the discretion of the Crown. And although such convictions are absolutely necessary for the due collection of the public money, and are a species of mercy to the delinquents, who would be ruined by the expense and delay of frequent prosecutions by action or indictment, and though such has usually been the conduct of the commissioners as seldom (if ever) to afford just grounds to complain of oppression; yet, when we again consider the various and almost innumerable branches of this revenue which may be in their turns the subjects of fraud, or at least complaints of fraud, and of course the objects of this _summary_ and arbitrary jurisdiction, we shall find that the power of these officers of the Crown over the property of the people is increased to a very formidable height.