from the first settlement of the law in England, and the jury only judges of fact.
Lieutenant-Colonel Lilburne.—If you will permit me to read, I will disprove it from your own law: here is the first part of Coke's Institutes, which all lawyers allow to be good law.
Lord Keble.—Convince Us that law concerns the jury, and you do somewhat.
Lieutenant-Colonel Lilburne.—Sir, I apply myself to the jury; let read me your own law to them, and I shall leave myself to their consciences: Coke says in the first part of his Institutes, see. 566, fol. 226, 227, 228, in his exposition of Plowden.
Lord Keble.—Those quotations are not for your purpose, neither is there any such book; proceed to the matter of fact, and let this drop; you shall not read.
Judge Jermin.—There is no book intitled Coke's Commentary on Plowden, and you cannot be permitted to broach that erroneous opinion, that the jury are judges of law.
Lieutenant-Colonel Lilburne.—Then here I'll die: jury observe, is it easy to mistake Plowden for Littleton, and these are his words: [In this case the recognitors of the assize may say and render to the justices their verdict at large upon the whole matter;] and says in another place, [That the jurors have cognizance of the case as well as of the condition;] and says further, [That a special verdict, or at large, may be given in any action and upon any issue general or special.] And in sec. 568, Littleton has these words, [Also in such case where the Inquest may give their verdict at large, if they will take upon them the knowledge of the law, upon the matter they may give their verdict generally;] and Coke saith thereon, [Although the jury, if they will take upon them (as Littleton saith) the knowledge of the law, may give a general verdict.] This being to my purpose, I have done, Sir.
Lord Keble.—You have spent time to no purpose; I thought you had known law better.
Lieutenant-Colonel Lilburne.—I shall now, Sir, proceed to matter of fact, and desire the jury will take notice, that by the statutes of 1st Edward VI. c. 12. and 5th and 6th of Edward VI. c. 11. no man shall be condemned of treason, but by the clear proof of two legal witnesses; and in Coke, 3d Instit. c. High Treason, fol. 12. it is said it must be by the direct and sufficient proof of two witnesses, and not on surmises, or conjectural inferences; and that he be attainted by due course of law, and by no absolute power, or other means whatsoever; and in fol. 24, that there must be two lawful witnesses, as well on the trial as indictment: and in fol. 240, he says the same attainders of treason must be upon plain and direct evidence; for though restitution of lands may be had, there can be none of life.
Lord Keble.—The proof has been so plain as (I hope) it will convince the jury, and that they will find the prisoner guilty.
Judge Jermin.—What you have urged makes much for the jury.
Lieutenant-Colonel Lilburne.—I shall now answer your proof in the same manner as the witnesses swore. Mr. Newcomb swears I was with Captain Jones, from whom he received the "Outcry;" that Captain Jones (not I) agreed for the printing; and that I took
