a private individual was a species of moral
assassination. It was odd that an individual could not be libeled with
impunity, and yet that society might be set by the ears. The government
were equally protected with all others against the malevolence and
virulence of the press. He would again repeat, but he would say nothing
as to what the law ought to be, but he stated what it was. What he
conceived to be the true liberty of the press was this, that any man
might, without permission, publish what he please, if he were responsible
for what he might publish. It might be asked, then is a man answerable
for every expression? To that he would answer, no; if a man's intention
were to convince the people that the government was not acting right, he
had a right to publish his opinions; and if some sparks should fly out
beyond decorum when the real apparent object was to instruct, the
expressions ought not to be visited with punishment. But men must not go
farther than instruct: they must not say that the system of government is
a system of tyranny; which meant nothing more than that the people ought
to pull down such systems. The learned counsel had alluded to Athens and
Rome, but it was well known that those States punished offences of this
description with greater severity than the laws of England inflicted.
Every man had a right to point out with firmness, but with respect, the
errors of government. Every man has a right to appeal to the
understanding, but not to the passions; and the man who wished to do so
need not be afraid to write. The distinction between fair discussion and
libel was this, that one was an appeal to the passions, and the other to
the understanding. If the jury were of opinion that this pamphlet was an
address to the people of the country, to induce them by legal and
constitutional means to procure a redress of grievances, then they would
acquit the defendant; but, if on the other hand, they should be of
opinion that the intention was to appeal to prejudices and passions (as
he thought) it was their bounden duty, whatever they might think of the
propriety or impropriety of the prosecution, to return a verdict of
guilty. He next felt it his duty to remark upon the passages in the
record, and if the learned gentleman had gone through the pamphlet, he
would have found in the next page, in which the writer said, that the
making and administration of laws was corrupt, a sufficient explanation
of wha