[ 22 ]
ter of libel, he in effect attacks the liberty of the press. In some instances, he has succeeded, because jurymen are too often ignorant of their own rights, and too apt to be awed by the authority of a chief Justice. In other criminal prosecutions, the malice of the design is confessedly as much the subject of consideration to a jury, as the certainty of the fact. If a different doctrine prevail in the case of libels, why should it not extend to all criminal cases? Why not to capital offences? I see no reason, why the life of the subject should be better protected than his liberty or property. Why should a Judge enjoy the full power of pillory, fine and imprisonment, and not b indulged with hanging or transportation?"
"But, my Lord, (says Junius) since Judges have laboured, and not unsuccessfully, to destroy the substance of the trial, why should they suffer the form of the verdict to remain[1]? Why force twelve honest men, in palpable violation of their oaths, to pronounce their fellow-
subject
- ↑ That amendment was left for Mr. Justice Buller to attempt, by altering the record of the heart.
