s these public trials that give them importance and
notoriety. They would not draw an eye but for the glare thrown on them
by these luminous prosecutions. These indictments (though I would not
willingly be ludicrous on so serious an occasion) force into my mind the
course once adopted with regard to houses of ill-fame, by the Society for
the Suppression of Vice. They paid men who were fixed before the doors
of such houses with huge paper lanterns, on which there was painted in
large illuminated letters, "This is a house of bad fame." But, instead
of causing a desertion of the houses, they operated as an advertisement
and an allurement, and increased the numbers who resorted to them. Those
who had before frequented them did not discontinue their visits, and
those who were ignorant of such places and seeking them, on seeing the
emblazonment by the doors, cried out--that is just what we wanted, and
turned in. The society at last discovered their mistake. They found
that they were encouraging what they wished to abolish, and discontinued
the plan. My learned friend, who is counsel for the society, can confirm
me when I assert that they do not now carry it into practice. Precisely
the operation that these lanterns had with regard to houses of ill-fame,
have these trials upon obnoxious writings. They are illuminated by the
rays which are shed on them by these proceedings. They attract every
eye, and are read in the light (as it were) of the notoriety which is
thus thrown upon them by these prosecutions.

Gentlemen, it just occurs to my recollection, that I have omitted in its
proper place something which I ought to have mentioned, and urged to you,
and I beg your indulgence to supply the omission. You will remember that
in one of the passages charged as libelous, the words "I will not, now,
say a word about insurrection" are to be found, and my learned friend,
Mr. Gurney, suggested to you that it was an excitement, at some future
period, to insurrection. I, gentlemen, repeat that these words are not
only no excitement to insurrection, but an express disavowal of it. If
you infer that he means insurrection at any future time, you must also
suppose that the insurrection he contemplates is conditional, and in
speculation of conduct in the government that may justify it. Is there
any extrinsic evidence to show that he means something beyond the words?
None--and the words themselves are a literal disclaimer of any int