fo. EN aw be ary da of cri ring om heir are pre oaths, as fome have fuppo party accused has not writte published fuch a book or pap is not guilty of the crime I formation or indictment; t written, printed, or publishe dalous, and feditious libel; ever he has written, printed has not been done malicious evil or wicked defign. In is not guilty, in MANNER laid in the information or in the fubftantial parts of e defendant have been d if not, they ought their duty to inquiré are fworn WELL AND cause on which iffue is ght not to bring in implicit acquiefcence law, as well bel, any man printing, or government, viction of the And him guilt tion of the co against whom published, has against the pa fach damages jury. These understanding or reasoning; and though the verdict be right the jury give, yet they being not affured it is fo from their ← own understanding, are forfworn, at least IN FORO CONSCIENTIÆ ADMITTING juries to be judges of the law, as well as of the fact, in matter of libel, any man who is charged with writing, printing, or publishing, a libel against the government, may, if a jury, from a conviction of the criminality of the publication, find him guilty, be punished at the discretion of the court. Any private individual, against whom any thing libellous has been published, has a right to bring his action against the party offending, and to recover fuch damages as fhall be given him by a jury. These restraints upon the press are furely amply fufficient, and all that ought to be submitted to in a free country. Far 88 Vaughan's Reports, p. 148. ther ther restraints would be inconfiftent with the liberty of the press, and highly detrimental to the public. THERE can be no reason for afferting, that juries are so partial to the liberty of the press, that they will wantonly acquit those perfons in whose publications there shall be evident criminality, or what may appear to them to be fo. Even in the cafe of Mr. WILKES, popular as that gentleman was, he was found guilty by a jury, both for the North Briton, No. 45, and for the Effay on Woman. And in the late cafe of the dean of St. Afaph, though the jury were avowedly not convinced, that the Dialogue, with the publication of which that gentleman was charged, was a libel, they yet declined to bring in a clear verdict of acquittal. There can, therefore, be no reason whatever for depriving the subject of the protection of a jury, in the case of libels, any any more than in other cases; and he is in fact deprived of it, if the jury determine only the point of publication, which is feldom a matter of much doubt, and leave the innocence or criminality of what is published wholly to the determination of the court. In truth, the great fault of juries has always been, not a propensity to bring in verdicts, without reason, against the directions or opinions of the judges; but too much obfequiousness to the court, too great a readiness to comply implicitly with its directions, and too little firmness and spirit in afferting their own rights. It is also a great public evil, that perfons in good circumftances, and of fome education, are fo apt to decline ferving on juries, especially on what is called the PETIT JURY, though they are the most likely to discharge the duties of the office with propriety and integrity. |