which had
nothing to do with the verdict which they were to give. One observation
had been made, in the propriety of which he perfectly agreed, which was
that they would dismiss from their minds all prejudices. The learned
counsel for the defendant seemed to think that the name of Carlile was
sufficient to create prejudices. If that were the case, he hoped the
jury would forget that the present defendant was of that name. They had
nothing now to do but to exercise their judgment upon the facts before
them. The jury were told, and truly told, that they were the judges as
to whether this was a libel or not. The statute gave the jury the power
of finding a general verdict; but they still were bound under the
sanction of their oaths to find it according to law. He should give his
opinion, and the jury were at liberty to differ with him; but he must beg
in the most distinct terms to state that the jury or the court had
nothing to do with the propriety or impropriety of these prosecutions, or
with the association by which the prosecution had been instituted. For
his own part he did not know by whom it had been instituted until he had
been requested by the defendant to ask the jurors as they went into the
box, whether or not they were members of that association. The two
questions to be decided were, first, Was this pamphlet a libel? and
secondly, Was the defendant the publisher? They must lay out of their
consideration acts of parliament passed in Virginia. The principles laid
down in the preamble of the act alluded to, might be a good principle for
America, but he was bound to tell them that it was not law in England. In
the book quoted from by the learned gentlemen, it was said "how wretched
must be the state of society in a country where the laws were uncertain;"
and that must be the case where the jury take into consideration the
propriety or impropriety of laws. In his opinion this publication was
libelous, and if the jury were not satisfied of the contrary, the safer
course would be for the jury to agree in opinion with one who must be
presumed to be acquainted with the law, and who gives that opinion upon
his oath. No man could be a more ardent admirer than he of the press, to
the freedom of which Europe was principally indebted for its happiness;
and God forbid that he should do anything which would for a moment
extinguish that liberty! The learned counsel for the defendant had said,
that the libel upon