The evidence already given in the preceding chapters proves that the rights and duties of jurors, in civil suits, were anciently the same as in criminal ones; that the laws of the king were of no obligation upon the consciences of the jurors, any further than the laws were seen by them to be just; that very few laws were enacted applicable to civil suits; that when a new law was enacted, the nature of it could have been known to the jurors only by report, and was very likely not to be known to them at all; that nearly all the law involved in civil suits was _unwritten_; that there was _usually_ no one in attendance upon juries who could possibly enlighten them, unless it were sheriffs, stewards, and bailiffs, who were unquestionably too ignorant and untrustworthy to instruct them authoritatively; that the jurors must therefore necessarily have judged for themselves of the whole case; and that, _as a general rule_, they could judge of it by no law but the law of nature, or the principles of justice as they existed in their own minds. The ancient oath of jurors in civil suits, viz., that "_they would make known the truth according to their consciences_," implies that the jurors were above the authority of all legislation. The modern oath, in England, viz., that they "_will well and truly try the issue between the parties, and a true verdict give, according to the evidence_," implies the same thing. If the laws of the king had been binding upon a jury, they would have been sworn to try the cases _according to law_, or according to the laws. The ancient writs, in civil suits, as given in Glanville, (within the half century before Magna Carta,) to wit, "Summon twelve free and legal men, (or sometimes twelve knights,) to be in court, _prepared upon their oaths to declare whether A or B have the greater right to the land in question_," indicate that the jurors judged of the whole matter on their consciences only. The language of Magna Carta, already discussed, establishes the same point; for, although some of the words, such as "outlawed," and "exiled," would apply only to criminal cases, nearly the whole chapter applies as well to civil as to criminal suits. For example, how could the payment of a debt ever be enforced against an unwilling debtor, if he could neither be "arrested, imprisoned, nor deprived of his freehold," and if the king could neither "proceed against him, nor send any one against him, by force or arms"? Yet Magna Carta as much forbids that any of these things shall be done against a debtor, as against a criminal, _except according to, or in execution of_, "_a judgment of his peers, or the law of the land_,"--a provision which, it has been shown, gave the jury the free and absolute right to give or withhold "judgment" according to their consciences, irrespective of all legislation.