He was a merchant, (and as I said, an _ignoramus_ juryman) had covenanted with a servant boy to serve him in the West Indies, and accordingly sent him beyond sea: Upon suggestion and affidavit by which any person might have it, a writ _de homine replegiando_ was granted against Mr. Wilmer; the sheriffs would have returned on the writ the agreement and the boy's consent, but the court (in the case of this Wilmer) Easter 34, Cha. 2. [_i.e.,_ Charles the Second] in B.R. ruled they must return _replegiari fecimus_ or _elongavit_, that is, they had replevy'd the boy, or that Wilmer had carried him away where they could not find him, in which last case Mr. Wilmer, though an innocent person must have gone to gaol until he brought the boy into court or he must have been outlawed--Shower's Rep. 2 Part. I do not say this that I think the same thing will be practised again, or anything like it, though I know that very homely proverb, "More ways of killing a dog than hanging him."--But I instance it to shew, the counsels of every grand juryman should be kept secret, that he may act freely and without apprehensions of resentment from the prosecuted or prosecutor. My resolution when I writ to you last, was, not to have said anything in this concerning the power of dissolving or dispensing, but as I have been forced to say something of the dispensing, for the same reason I must of the dissolving power.--A power undoubtedly in effect including that of returning, which makes me wish two men of great interest in this kingdom, differing in every other thing, had not undertaken to defend it, or they had better reasons for it than I have yet heard. '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.--