inspirit others? They give no reason for their verdict, they can
but condemn or acquit; and no man can tell the motives on which they
have acquitted or condemned. So that this hope of the power of
juries to assert their own jurisdiction must be a principle blind,
as being without reason, and as changeable as the complexion of men
and the temper of the times.

But, after all, is it fit that this dishonourable contention between
the court and juries should subsist any longer? On what principle
is it that a jury refuses to be directed by the court as to his
competence? Whether a libel or no libel be a question of law or of
fact may be doubted, but a question of jurisdiction and competence
is certainly a question of law; on this the court ought undoubtedly
to judge, and to judge solely and exclusively. If they judge wrong
from excusable error, you ought to correct it, as to-day it is
proposed, by an explanatory bill; or if by corruption, by bill of
penalties declaratory, and by punishment. What does a juror say to
a judge when he refuses his opinion upon a question of judicature?
You are so corrupt, that I should consider myself a partaker of your
crime, were I to be guided by your opinion; or you are so grossly
ignorant, that I, fresh from my bounds, from my plough, my counter,
or my loom, am fit to direct you in your profession. This is an
unfitting, it is a dangerous, state of things. The spirit of any
sort of men is not a fit rule for deciding on the bounds of their
jurisdiction. First, because it is different in different men, and
even different in the same at different times; and can never become
the proper directing line of law; next, because it is not reason,
but feeling; and when once it is irritated, it is not apt to confine
itself within its proper limits. If it becomes, not difference in
opinion upon law, but a trial of spirit between parties, our courts