"What!--shall a person appeal from that Court, who are the only judges of things belonging to them, the House of Commons I mean. An appeal! To whom? To a mob? Must Justice be appealed from? To whom? To injustice? Appeal to 'the good people of England,' 'particularly the inhabitants of Westminster'! The House of Commons are the good people of England, being the representatives of the people. The rest are--what? Nothing--unless it be a mob. But the clear meaning of this libel was an _appeal to violence_, in fact, and to stigmatize the House." "Then he charges the House with sinking material evidence; which in fact is accusing the House of injustice. This is a charge the most shocking; the most severe, and the most unjust and virulent, against the good, the tender House of Commons; that safeguard of our liberty, and guardian of our welfare." "This libel ... will be found the most powerful invective that the skill of man could invent. I will not say the skill, but the wit, art, and false contrivance of man, instigated by Satan;" "to say that this is not a libel, is to say that there is no justice, equity, or right in the world." The Solicitor-General told the Jury that they were only to inquire _if Mr. Owen published the pamphlet_, "_the rest follows of course_;" "you are upon your oaths; you judge of the facts ... and _only them_." Chief Justice Lee summed up the evidence "and delivered it as his opinion, that the _Jury ought to find the defendant guilty;_ for he thought the _fact of publication was fully proved; and if so they could not avoid bringing in the defendant guilty_." The jury returned, "Not guilty;" but Ryder, the Attorney-General, put this question, Do you think the evidence is not sufficient to convince you that _Owen did sell the book_? The foreman stuck to his general verdict, "Not guilty," "Not guilty;" and several of the jurymen said, "that is our verdict, my lord, and we abide by it." "Upon which the court broke up, and there was a prodigious shout in the hall." Then "the Jury judged as to facts, law, and justice of the whole, and therefore did not answer the leading question which was so artfully put to them."[127] Of course the insolent Attorney-General was soon made "Lord Chief Justice," and _rode_ the bench after the antiquated routine. [Footnote 127: 18 St. Tr. 1203; 14 Parl. Hist. 888, 1063; 3 Hallam, 200; 2 Campbell, Justices, 198.] This was the third great case in which the Jury had vindicated the right of speech. 6. Here is another case very famous in its day, and of great value as helping to establish the rights of juries, and so to protect the natural right of the citizens--the Trial of John Miller for reprinting Junius's Letter to the King, in 1770.