such a measure practicable and prudent, but loudly call for it as
a step rendered indispensable to the welfare of the community.
Numbers have also served their terms of transportation, or have
been made objects of royal bounty on account of their signal good
conduct, and have thus swelled the numbers of free residents; so
that there could be no difficulty in making out a list of jurors,
sufficient for every purpose, even if the assizes were ordered to
be held monthly, which is a more frequent occurrence than in the
mother country. Objections may be started to the propriety of
receiving those, who have been convicted and have suffered the
sentence of the law, as jurors; but if this description of
persons are worthy to be received as evidence at all in a court
of justice, and there are instances sufficient on record to prove
this to have been the case; and where this evidence of persons so
objected to and proscribed, has been the sole means of the
conviction to death of the accused, surely it could afford no
room for cavil that a jury should in part be composed of persons,
whose conduct during the term of their punishment has been such
as to give general satisfaction, and who have proved by their
conduct that they have reformed their dispositions, corrected
their principles, and are likely to become useful, and
consequently valuable, members of society; and none others should
be admitted on the list. Besides, even allowing this objection to
have some weight, will reason and policy justify the carrying of
this principle to such a length, as to exclude from this
privilege those free settlers who have been guilty of no crime,
and have suffered no punishment? Shall these, in return for their
voluntary exile from their native land to promote the interest of
the colony, lose the benefit of this inestimable distinction,
which operates as a security to the freedom of Englishmen, and