Another reason why Magna Carta makes the discretion and consciences of juries paramount to all legislation in _civil_ suits, is, that if legislation were binding upon a jury, the jurors--(by reason of their being unable to read, as jurors in those days were, and also by reason of many of the statutes being unwritten, or at least not so many copies written as that juries could be supplied with them)--would have been necessitated--at least in those courts in which the king's justices sat--to take the word of those justices as to what the laws of the king really were. In other words, they would have been necessitated _to take the law from the court_, as jurors do now. Now there were two reasons why, as we may rationally suppose, the people did not wish juries to take their law from the king's judges. One was, that, at that day, the people probably had sense enough to see, (what we, at this day, have not sense enough to see, although we have the evidence of it every day before our eyes,) that those judges, being dependent upon the legislative power, (the king,) being appointed by it, paid by it, and removable by it at pleasure, would be mere tools of that power, and would hold all its legislation obligatory, whether it were just or unjust. This was one reason, doubtless, why Magna Carta made juries, in civil suits, paramount to all instructions of the king's judges. The reason was precisely the same as that for making them paramount to all instructions of judges in criminal suits, viz., that the people did not choose to subject their rights of property, and all other rights involved in civil suits, to the operation of such laws as the king might please to enact. It was seen that to allow the king's judges to dictate the law to the jury would be equivalent to making the legislation of the king imperative upon the jury. Another reason why the people did not wish juries, in civil suits, to take their law from the king's judges, doubtless was, that, knowing the dependence of the judges upon the king, and knowing that the king would, of course, tolerate no judges who were not subservient to his will, they necessarily inferred that the king's judges would be as corrupt, in the administration of justice, as was the king himself, or as he wished them to be. And how corrupt that was, may be inferred from the following historical facts. Hume says: