fubject than it might have been, by the ignorance or timidity of those who have ferved on juries; and by the arts which have been employed, to confine them within narrower limits than was intended by the constitution, and to bewilder their understandings by the fubtilties of legal fophiftry. It is, therefore, of great cohfequence to the interefts of public freedom, that the rights of jurymen should be refolutely maintained, and their business and duty clearly explained and generally underftood. In the obfervations now offered to the public, the rights and duties of juries in trials for libels is the particular object of attention; as it is apprehended, that doc trines have been recently advanced upon that fubject, by men whofe offices naturally give weight to their opinions, which are highly derogatory to the rights of juries, inconfiftent with the purposes for which juries were were evidently appointed, and totally fubverfive of the freedom of the prefs. By the doctrine which has lately been maintained upon this subject, juries have no business, or right, in trials for libels, to enter at all into the merits of any book, pamphlet, or paper, which any man is tried for writing, printing, or publishing, bur merely to inquire into the fact of publication, and into the innuendoes, or application of the blanks, if there be any; and if the publication be proved, they are to find the defendant guilty, leaving the innocence, or criminality, of the book or paper styled á libel, wholly to the determination of the eourt. Whether fuch book or paper be in law a libel, is, we are told, a queftion of upon the face of the record; and to the determination of this the jury are not law competent. THIS doctrine, though not very antient, is certainly not new. It was maintained, in the last century, by fome of those judges, and crown lawyers, who were enemies to the rights of juries, and to the freedom of the prefs; and their example has been copied fince, and much legal dexterity exerted, in order to prevail on juries to fubmit to this diminution of their power and importance. The doctrine, however, has been repeatedly and strongly opposed, by those who were friends to a free press, and to general liberty. It was, indeed, manifest to every man, who thought coolly and impartially upon the subject, and who could diveft the doctrine of the technical obfcurity, in which it appeared to be intentionally involved, that it would render juries useless in cafes, in which, of all others, their interference was the most neceffary to the fecurity of the subject; and that that it could not justly be confidered im any other light, than as an extenfion of the power of the judges, to the prejudice of the most facred and important rights of English juries. NEITHER by the antient common law of the land, nor by any ftatute, have juries ever been deprived of the power of bringing in a general verdict, in trials for libels, any more than in any other cafes. All that is called law upon the fubject is only the opinion of certain judges, occafionally delivered, and manifeftly calculated to extend their own jurisdiction. But no ufurpation on the rights of juries ought to be fubmitted to, and particularly in criminal profecutions for libels, as in these cases the influence of the crown is especially to be ap prehended. In the ordinary cafes that come before the judges, as they have no interest on either fide, it is natural for them to de liver their opinions, in general, with im partiality. But, in trials for libels, it has been no uncommon thing to fee in the judge, before whom the cause was tried, a manifest desire to convict the defendant; a defire that has been apparent to every man in the court. It is in fuch cafes aš thefe, therefore, that English juries should exert their right of judging for themselves; and in which they should refolutely refuse to bring in a verdict of guilty, againft those whom they are appointed to try, unlefs they have a full conviction that they have been guilty of fome criminal act. It was in order to give the subject this secu rity, that juries were appointed; and if they do not exert the power, which the conftitution has given them in fuch cafes, they violate the truft repofed in them, and are themselves unworthy of the pro tection |