ad been perjured if I had broken it. God is my
judge, I never intended it.'"--_Somers on Grand Juries_, p. 82.
In 1688, the coronation oath was changed by act of Parliament, and the
king was made to swear:
"To govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions
thereto belonging, _according to the statutes in Parliament agreed
on, and the laws and customs of the same_."--_St. 1 William and
Mary_, ch. 6. (1688.)
The effect and legality of this oath will hereafter be considered. For
the present it is sufficient to show, as has been already sufficiently
done, that from the Saxon times until at least as lately as 1616, the
coronation oath has been, in substance, _to maintain the law of the
land, or the common law_, meaning thereby the ancient Saxon customs, as
embodied in the laws of Alfred, of Edward the Confessor, and finally in
Magna Carta.
It may here be repeated that this oath plainly proves that the statutes
of the king were of no authority over juries, if inconsistent with their
ideas of right; because it was one part of the common law that juries
should try all causes according to their own consciences, any
legislation of the king to the contrary notwithstanding.[64]
[Footnote 34: Hale says:
"The trial by jury of twelve men was the usual trial among the
Normans, in most suits; especially in assizes, et juris utrum."--_1
Hale's History of the Common Law_, 219.
This was in Normandy, before the conquest of England by the Normans.
_See Ditto_, p. 218.
Crabbe says:
"It cannot be denied that the practice of submitting causes to the
decision of twelve men was universal among all the northern tribes
(of Europe) from the very remotest antiquity."--_Crabbe's History of
the English Law_, p. 32.]
[Footnote 35: "The people, who in every general council or assembly
could oppose and dethrone their sovereigns, were in little dread of
their encroachments on their liberties; and kings, who found sufficient
employment in keeping possession of their crowns, would not likely
attack the more important privileges of their subjects."]
[Footnote 36: This office was afterwards committed to sheriffs. But even
while the court was held by the lord, "_the Lord was not judge, but the
Pares (peers) only_."--_Gilbert on the Court of Exchequer_, 61-2.]
[Footnote 37: The opinion expressed in the text, that the Witan had no
legislative authority, is corroborated by the followin
|