He knew perfectly well, and the whole English nation knew, that the _king_ could not lawfully infringe Magna Carta. Magna Carta, therefore, made it impossible that absolute power could ever be practically established in England, _in the hands of the king_. Hence, as Coke was an advocate for absolute power,--that is, for a legislative power "so transcendent and absolute as (that) it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds,"--there was no alternative for him but to vest this absolute power in parliament. Had he not vested it in parliament, he would have been obliged to abjure it altogether, and to confess that the people, _through their juries_, had the right to judge of the obligation of all legislation whatsoever; in other words, that they had the right to confine the government within the limits of "those just laws and customs which the common people (acting as jurors) had chosen." True to his instincts, as a judge, and as a tyrant, he assumed that this absolute power was vested in the hands of parliament. But the truth was that, as by the English constitution parliament had no authority at all for _general_ legislation, it could no more confirm, than it could abolish, Magna Carta. These thirty-two confirmations of Magna Carta, which Coke speaks of as "acts of parliament," were merely acts of the king. The parliaments, indeed, by refusing to grant him money, except on that condition, and otherwise, had contributed to oblige him to make the confirmations; just as they had helped to oblige him by arms to grant the charter in the first place. But the confirmations themselves were nevertheless constitutionally, as well as formally, the acts of the king alone.] [Footnote 110: Under the head of "_John._"] [Footnote 111: _4 Blackstone_, 349-50.] [Footnote 112: _3 Blackstone_, 379.] [Footnote 113: _Hume_, ch. 2.] [Footnote 114: Page 203, 5th edition, 1721.] [Footnote 115: St. 1 _William and Mary_, ch. 6, (1688.)] [Footnote 116: 4 _Inst._, 36.] CHAPTER XII. LIMITATIONS IMPOSED UPON THE MAJORITY BY THE TRIAL BY JURY. The principal objection, that will be made to the doctrine of this essay, is, that under it, a jury would paralyze the power of the majority, and veto all legislation that was not in accordance with the will of the whole, or nearly the whole, people. The answer to this objection is, that the limitation, which would be thus imposed upon the legislative power, (whether that power be vested in the majority, or minority, of the people,) is the crowning merit of the trial by jury. It has other merits; but, though important in themselves, they are utterly insignificant and worthless in comparison with this.