shall be understood by your Lordship, when I assert that, if a jury or any other court of judicature (for jurors are judges) have no right to entertain a cause, or question of law, it signifies nothing whether their decision be or be not according to law. Their decision is, in itself, a mere nullity: the parties are not bound to submit to it; and, if the jury run any risk of punishment, it is not for pronouncing a corrupt or illegal verdict, but for the illegality of meddling with a point, on which they have no legal authority to decide[1].
I cannot quit this subject without reminding your Lordship of the name of Mr. Benson. Without offering any legal objection, you ordered a special juryman to be set aside in a cause, where the King was prosecutor. The novelty of the fact required explanation. Will you condescend to tell the world by what law or custom you were
- ↑ These iniquitous prosecutions cost the best of princes six thousand pounds, and ended in the total defeat and disgrace of the prosecutors. In the course of one of them Judge Aston had the unparallelled impudence to tell Mr. Morris (a gentleman of unquestionable honour and integrity, and who was then giving his evidence on oath, that he should pay very little regard to any affidavit he should make.
