It was impossible that this right of the jury could subsist consistently with any right, on the part of the king, to impose any authoritative legislation upon them. His oath, therefore, to maintain the law of the land, or the ancient "laws, customs, and liberties," was equivalent to an oath that he would never assume to impose laws upon juries, as imperative rules of decision, or take from them the right to try all cases according to their own consciences. It is also an admission that he had no constitutional power to do so, if he should ever desire it. This oath, then, is conclusive proof that his legislation was of no authority with a jury, and that they were under no obligation whatever to enforce it, unless it coincided with their own ideas of justice. The ancient coronation oath is printed with the Statutes of the Realm, vol. i., p. 168, and is as follows: [31] TRANSLATION. "Form of the Oath of the King of England, on his Coronation. (The Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom, of right and custom of the Church of Canterbury, ancient and approved, it pertains to anoint and crown the kings of England, on the day of the coronation of the king, and before the king is crowned, shall propound the underwritten questions to the king.) The laws and customs, conceded to the English people by the ancient, just, and pious English kings, will you concede and preserve to the same people, with the confirmation of an oath? and especially the laws, customs, and liberties conceded to the clergy and people by the illustrious king Edward? (And the king shall answer,) I do concede, and will preserve them, and confirm them by my oath. Will yon preserve to the church of God, the clergy, and the people, entire peace and harmony in God, according to your powers? (And the king shall answer,) I will. In all your judgments, will you cause equal and right justice and discretion to be done, in mercy and truth, according to your powers? (And the king shall answer,) I will. Do you concede that the just laws and customs, which the common people have chosen, shall be preserved; and do you promise that they shall be protected by you, and strengthened to the honor of God, according to your powers? (And the king shall answer,) I concede and promise." The language used in the last of these questions, "Do you concede that the just laws and customs, which the common people have chosen, (quas vulgus elegit,) shall be preserved?" ect., is worthy of especial notice, as showing that the laws, which were to be preserved, were not necessarily all the laws which the kings enacted, but only such of them as the common people had selected or approved. And how had the common people made known their approbation or selection of these laws? Plainly, in no other way than this that the juries composed of the common people had voluntarily enforced them. The common people had no other legal form of making known their approbation of particular laws.