“The law of Nature,” says Blackstone, “being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding all over the globe; in all countries, at all times. No human laws have any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”--1 _Com._ 41. Fortescue, the Chancellor of Henry VI., in his _De Laudibus Legum Angliæ_, cap. 42, has the following passage, the consideration of which, in requital for Mr. Webster’s advice to me, I respectfully commend to him:-- “That must necessarily be adjudged a cruel law, which augments slavery, and diminishes liberty. For human nature implores, without ceasing, for liberty. Slavery is introduced by man, and through his vice. But liberty is the gift of God to man. Wherefore, when torn from a man, it ever yearns to return; and it is the same with every thing when deprived of its natural liberty. On this account, that man is to be adjudged cruel, who does not favor liberty. By these considerations the laws of England, in every case, give favor to liberty.” Having defended my own propositions, I shall now take the liberty to examine some of Mr. Webster’s; and, in so doing, I shall examine the constitutional provisions for trial by jury, and fortify my opinion by historical references. I shall consider, I. _Where Congress has power to provide for such trial._ II. _Where it is the duty of Congress to do so._ Mr. Webster says “the constitution declares, that in all criminal prosecutions, there shall be a trial by jury;” and that “in suits at common law the trial by jury shall be preserved.” He then adds, “There is no other clause or sentence in the constitution having the least bearing upon the subject.” Mark his words: “There is no other clause or sentence in the constitution, _having the least bearing on the subject_.” This I deny. Here Mr. Webster virtually declares that, but for the above-named two provisions, the right of the trial by jury would not have been secured to us by the constitution _in any case_. Of course, in the absence of these provisions, Congress would have been under no obligation, nor would it, indeed, have had any power, to provide by law for such trials. Were I to say that this assertion borders on the incredible, one might well ask, Which side of the line does it lie? The provision for a trial by jury, _in criminal prosecutions_, is in the third clause of the second section of the third article, and is repeated, and somewhat enlarged, in the fifth and sixth articles of amendment. But the provision for trial by jury, _in suits at common law_, is in the seventh article of amendment; and neither this provision, nor any semblance of it, is to be found, in express words, in any part of the constitution as it came from the hands of its framers, and was adopted by the states.