" B. T." has mistaken what we addressed to him on the 20th of March. We said that if he would condense " the whole of his observations on the subject of Grand Juries Into one paper of moderate length," we would endeavour to make room for it during the Easter recess. Be sends us a sequel ; but that implies that we should make room for two papers in place of one ; which is more than we can do. Nor is the former letter at our command. We and It impossible to undertake the charge of keeping manuscripts, and we have several times said as much to oar correspondents.
If a correspondent who writes on the let instant, under the signature of "E.", and another who addresses us from a residence near Birmingham, read our remarks again, we think they will see that they have put a wider construction upon them than they will sustain : we certainly bad no intention to produce the impressions which our Birmingham friend describes. On the other hand, we do not insert either letter, because both carry the subject beyond the bounds to which we had limited ourselves, and would expose us to an endless controversy.