They cannot magisterially impose their opinions upon the jury, and make them forsake the direct words of their oath, to pursue their glosses. The grand inquest are bound to observe alike strictly every part of their oath, and to use all just and proper ways which may enable them to perform it; otherwise it were to say, that after men had sworn to inquire diligently after the truth, according to the best of their knowledge, they were bound to forsake all the natural and proper means which their understandings suggest for the discovery of it, if it be commanded by the judges."--_Lord Somers' Essay on Grand Juries_, p. 38. What is here said so plainly and forcibly of the oath and obligations of grand juries, is equally applicable to the oath and obligations of petit juries. In both cases the simple oaths of the jurors, and not the instructions of the judges, nor the statutes of kings nor legislatures, are their legal guides to their duties.[57] SECTION IV. _The Right of Juries to fix the Sentence._ The nature of the common law courts existing prior to Magna Carta, such as the county courts, the hundred courts, the court-leet, and the court-baron, all prove, what has already been proved from Magna Carta, that, in jury trials, the juries fixed the sentence; because, in those courts, there was no one but the jury who could fix it, unless it were the sheriff, bailiff, or steward; and no one will pretend that it was fixed by them. The juries unquestionably gave the "judgment" in both civil and criminal cases. That the juries were to fix the sentence under Magna Carta, is also shown by statutes subsequent to Magna Carta. A statute passed fifty-one years after Magna Carta, says that a baker, for default in the weight of his bread, "_debeat_ amerciari vel subire judicium pilloræ,"--that is, "_ought_ to be amerced, or suffer the sentence of the pillory." And that a brewer, for "selling ale, contrary to the assize," "_debeat_ amerciari, vel pati judicium tumbrelli;" that is, "_ought_ to be amerced, or suffer judgment of the tumbrel."--_51 Henry III._, st. 6. (1266.) If the king (the legislative power) had had authority to fix the punishments of these offences imperatively, he would naturally have said these offenders _shall_ be amerced, and _shall_ suffer judgment of the pillory and tumbrel, instead of thus simply expressing the opinion that they _ought_ to be punished in that manner. The statute of Westminster, passed sixty years after Magna Carta, provides that, "No city, borough, nor town, _nor any man_, be amerced, without reasonable cause, and according to the quantity of the trespass; that is to say, every freeman saving his freehold, a merchant saving his merchandise, a villein his waynage, _and that by his or their peers_."--_3 Edward I._, ch. 6. (1275.) The same statute (ch. 18) provides further, that,