jury are no more judges of the law in a capital or other criminal case, upon a plea of not guilty, than they are in every civil case tried upon the general issue. In each of these cases, their verdict, when general, is necessarily compounded of law and of fact, and includes both. In each they must necessarily determine the law, as well as the fact. In each, they have the physical power to disregard the law, as laid down to them by the court. But I deny, that, in any case, civil or criminal, they have the moral right to decide the law according to their own notions or pleasure. On the contrary, I hold it the most sacred constitutional right of every party accused of a crime, that the jury should respond as to the facts, and the court as to the law. It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law; and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court. This is the right of every citizen; and it is his only protection. If the jury were at liberty to settle the law for themselves, the effect would be, not only that the law itself would be most uncertain, from the different views which different juries might take of it; but, in case of error, there would be no remedy or redress by the injured party; for the court would not have any right to review the law, as it had been settled by the jury. Indeed, it would be almost impracticable to ascertain what the law, as settled by the jury, actually was. On the contrary, if the court should err, in laying down the law to the jury, there is an adequate remedy for the injured party, by a motion for a new trial, or a writ of error, as the nature of the jurisdiction of the particular court may require. Every person accused as a criminal has a right to be tried according to the law of the land, the fixed law of the land, and not by the law as a jury may understand it, or choose, from wantonness or ignorance, or accidental mistake, to interpret it. If I thought that the jury were the proper judges of the law in criminal cases, I should hold it my duty to abstain from the responsibility of stating the law to them upon any such trial. But believing as I do, that every citizen has a right to be tried by the law, and according to the law; that it is his privilege and truest shield against oppression and wrong; I feel it my duty to state my views fully and openly on the present occasion." The same opinion as to the province of the jury, was strongly expressed by Lord C. J. Best, in Levi v. Mylne, 4 Bing. 195.

The same subject was more fully considered in The Commonwealth v. Porter, 10 Met. 263, which was an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors without license. At the trial the defendant's counsel, being about to argue the questions of law to the jury, was stopped by the judge, who ruled, and so instructed the jury, that it was their duty to receive the law from the court, and implicitly to follow its direction upon matters of law. Exceptions being taken to this ruling of the judge, the point was elaborately argued in bank, and fully considered by the court, whose judgment, delivered by Shaw, C. J., concluded as follows: "On the whole subject, the views of the court may be summarily expressed in the following propositions: That, in all criminal cases, it is competent for the jury, if they see fit, to decide upon all questions of fact embraced in the issue, and to refer the law arising thereon to the court, in the form of a special verdict. But it is optional with the jury thus to return a special verdict or not, and it is within their legitimate province and power to return a general verdict, if they see fit. In thus rendering a general verdict, the jury must necessarily pass upon the whole issue, compounded of the law and of the fact, and they may thus incidentally pass on questions of law. In forming and returning such general verdict, it is within the legitimate authority and power of the jury to decide definitively upon all questions of fact involved in the issue, according to their judgment, upon the force and effect of the competent evidence laid before them; and if in the progress of the trial, or in the summing-up and charge to the jury, the court should express or intimate any opinion upon any such question of fact, it is within the legitimate province of the jury to revise, reconsider, and de cide contrary to such opinion, if, in their judgment, it is not correct, and warranted by the evidence. But it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury on all questions of law which appear to arise in the cause, and also upon all questions pertinent to the issue, upon which either party may request the direction of the court upon matters of law. And it is the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court, and conform their judgment and decision to such instructions, as far as they under stand them, in applying the law to the facts to be found by them; and it is not within the legitimate province of the jury to revise, reconsider, or decide contrary to such opinion or direction of the court in