Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all _legal_ defence whatsoever against oppression. The right of revolution, which tyrants, in mockery, accord to mankind, is no _legal_ right _under_ a government; it is only a _natural_ right to overturn a government. The government itself never acknowledges this right. And the right is practically established only when and because the government no longer exists to call it in question. The right, therefore, can be exercised with impunity, only when it is exercised victoriously. All _unsuccessful_ attempts at revolution, however justifiable in themselves, are punished as treason, if the government be permitted to judge of the treason. The government itself never admits the injustice of its laws, as a legal defence for those who have attempted a revolution, and failed. The right of revolution, therefore, is a right of no practical value, except for those who are stronger than the government. So long, therefore, as the oppressions of a government are kept within such limits as simply not to exasperate against it a power greater than its own, the right of revolution cannot be appealed to, and is therefore inapplicable to the case. This affords a wide field for tyranny; and if a jury cannot _here_ intervene, the oppressed are utterly defenceless. It is manifest that the only security against the tyranny of the government lies in forcible resistance to the execution of the injustice; because the injustice will certainly be executed, _unless it be forcibly resisted_. And if it be but suffered to be executed, it must then be borne; for the government never makes compensation for its own wrongs. Since, then, this forcible resistance to the injustice of the government is the only possible means of preserving liberty, it is indispensable to all _legal_ liberty that this _resistance_ should be _legalized_. It is perfectly self-evident that where there is no _legal_ right to resist the oppression of the government, there can be no _legal_ liberty. And here it is all-important to notice, that, _practically speaking_, there can be no _legal_ right to resist the oppressions of the government, unless there be some _legal_ tribunal, other than the government, and wholly independent of, and _above_, the government, to judge between the government and those who resist its oppressions; in other words, to judge what laws of the government are to be obeyed, and what may be resisted and held for nought. The only tribunal known to our laws, for this purpose, is a jury. If a jury have not the right to judge between the government and those who disobey its laws, and resist its oppressions, the government is absolute, and the people, _legally speaking_, are slaves. Like many other slaves they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are nevertheless _known to the law_ only as slaves.