summed up by a great master of criminal law. "The learning touching
these subjects," says Sir Michael Foster, "is a matter of great and
universal concernment. For no rank, no elevation in life, and, let me
add, no conduct, how circumspect soever, ought to tempt a reasonable
man to conclude that these enquiries do not, nor possibly can, concern
him. A moment's cool reflection on the utter instability of human
affairs, and the numberless unforeseen events which a day may bring
forth, will be sufficient to guard any man, conscious of his own
infirmities, against a delusion of this kind."

Let us suppose the minister of the day, having before been made aware
that, in a portion of the kingdom, a state of things existed that
demanded his utmost vigilance and attention, to have ascertained the
reality of the apparent danger, and to have procured accurate
information as to the real character of the proceedings, and to find
that acts apparently treasonable or seditious, as the case may be, had
been committed. Suppose him, charged with the safety of the state, and
responsible for the peace, order, and well-being of the community, to
set the constitutional process of the law in motion against the
offending individuals; his first step, under such circumstances, must
be to procure full and satisfactory evidence of the facts as they
really exist. For this purpose agents must he employed, necessarily in
secret, or the very end and object of their mission would be
frustrated, to collect and gather information from every authentic
source, and to watch, with their own eyes the proceedings which have
attracted attention. This is a work of time, perhaps; but suppose that
it is complete, and that the minister having before him in evidence,
true and unmistakable, a complete case of crime to lay before a jury,
what, under these circumstances, is the first step to be taken by the
crown? Either of two distinct modes of procedure may be chosen; the