is free--and flies off in triumph and derision, trumpeting forth his
victory, and proclaiming his escape from the snare, in which it was
hoped to encompass him. The astute and practised gentlemen thus
suspected, strong in the consciousness of deep legal knowledge, and
ready practical skill and science, may justly despise the petty
attacks of those who affect to doubt their professional ability and
attainments. Some in high places have not hesitated to hint, on one
occasion, at collusion, and to assert, that a certain prosecution
failed, because there was no real desire to punish.

Such is the substance of the various questions and speculations to
which the legal events of the last thirteen years have given rise. We
have now collected and enumerated them in a condensed form, for the
purpose of tracing their rise and progress, and in order that we may
demonstrate that, though there may possibly exist some reasons for
these opinions, founded often on a misapprehension of the real
circumstances of the cases quoted in their support, that they have, in
fact, little or no substantial foundation. With this view, therefore,
we shall briefly notice those trials, within the period of which we
speak, which form the groundwork of these charges against the
executive, before we proceed to state the real obstacles which do, in
fact, occasionally oppose the smooth and _rapid_ progress of a "State
Prosecution."

The first of these proceedings, which occurred during the period of
the last thirteen years, was the trial of Messrs O'Connell, Lawless,
Steel, and others. This case perhaps originated the opinions which
have partially prevailed, and was, in truth, not unlikely to make a
permanent impression on the public mind. In the month of January 1831,
true bills were found against these parties by the Grand Jury of