any law. Who is there in that province that can call anything his own, or enjoy any liberty longer than those in the administration will condescend to let them, for which reason I left it, as I believe more will."

"1

If such plain speaking were to be in our days condemned as libellous, which of our newspapers could survive for four-and-twenty hours? Hamilton admitted that this paragraph had Hamilton's been printed, whereupon the attorney- argument. general at once claimed a verdict for the crown. But the "information" had described the paragraph as "false, scandalous, malicious, and seditious," and Hamilton fastened upon the allegation of falsehood. He declared that the paragraph simply stated plain and well-known facts. The Lord Manschief justice and the attorney-general field's opinion, 1770. reminded him that the truth of a libel could not be admitted in evidence. This was the English law at that time, and a few years later Lord Mansfield, in commenting upon it, declared that "the greater truth, the greater libel." It was then held that the only question for the jury was the fact of publication. But the contrary view was pressing for recognition, and in the famous cases of Woodfall and Miller, in 1770, before the same eminent judge, the jury fairly took the matter into their own hands, deciding among themselves that certain expressions were not libellous, and returning a peremptory verdict of not guilty.2 The question was put to rest in 1792 by Fox's Libel Act,

1 Report of Zenger Trial, Boston, 1738.

2 Sir Erskine May, Constitutional History of England, ii. 115.

Fox's Act,

which declared it to be the law of England that the truth of a so-called libel is admissi1792. ble in evidence, and that the jury have a right to examine into the innocence or criminality of the writing and to give their verdict peremptorily without stating their reasons.

The "law of

in 1735.

We can thus see the vast importance of the step taken by the great Quaker lawyer, Hamilton, in 1735, when he insisted not only that the jury should listen to proof of the truthfulness of Zenger's paragraph, but should also decide the future" whether it could properly be condemned as libellous, or not. Hamilton may be said to have conducted the case according to the law of the future, and thus to have helped to make that law. In the history of freedom of the press his place is beside the great names of Erskine and Fox. A few extracts from his speech must be quoted :

"Years ago it was a crime to speak the truth, and in that terrible court of Star Chamber many brave men suffered for so doing; and yet, even in that court a great and good man durst say what I hope will not be taken amiss of me to say in this place, to wit: The practice of informations for libels is a sword in the hands of a wicked king, and an arrant coward, to cut down and Hamilton's destroy the innocent; the one cannot because of his high station, and the other dares not because of his want of courage, revenge himself in any other manner.' ... Our Constitution gives us an opportunity to prevent wrong by appealing to the people. . . . But of what use is

Part of

speech.

this mighty privilege if every man that suffers must be silent; and if a man must be taken up as a libeller for telling his sufferings to his neighbour? . . . Prosecutions for libels since the time of the Star Chamber have generally been set on foot at the instance of the crown or his ministers, and countenanced by judges who hold their places at pleasure. If a libel is understood in the large and unlimited sense urged by Mr. Attorney, there is scarce a writing I know that may not be called a libel, or scarcely any person safe from being called to account as a libeller. Moses, meek as he was, libelled Cain; and who has not libelled the Devil? for, according to Mr. Attorney, it is no justification to say that one has a bad name. How must a man speak or write, or what must he hear, read, or sing, or when must he laugh, so as to be secure from being taken up as a libeller? I sincerely believe that if some persons were to go through the streets of New York nowadays, and read a part of the Bible, if it were not known to be such, Mr. Attorney, with the help of his innuendoes, would easily turn it to be a libel; as, for instance, the sixteenth verse of the ninth chapter of Isaiah: The leaders of the people (innuendo, the governor and council of New York) cause them (innuendo, the people of this province) to err, and they (meaning the people of this province) are destroyed (innuendo, are deceived into the loss of their liberty, which is the worst kind of destruction).""

After concluding his argument, the venerable Quaker, who was then in his eightieth year, turned

to the jury with the following impressive perora

tion:

tion.

"You see I labour under the weight of years, and am borne down with great infirmities of body; yet, old and weak as I am, I should think it my His perora- duty, if required, to go to the utmost part of the land, where my service could be of use in assisting to quench the flame of prosecutions upon informations set on foot by the government, to deprive a people of the right of remonstrating and complaining of the arbitrary attempts of men in power. Men who injure and oppress the people under their administration provoke them to cry out and complain, and then make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions. I wish I could say there were no instances of this kind. But to conclude: the question before the court, and you, gentlemen of the jury, is not of small or private concern; it is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! it may in its consequences affect every freeman that lives under a British government on the main of America! It is the best cause, it is the cause of liberty, and I make no doubt but your upright conduct this day will not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow-citizens, but every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honour you, as men who have baffled the attempt of tyranny, and by an impartial and uncorrupt verdict have laid a noble foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbours, that to which nature and the laws of our country have

given us a right, the liberty both of exposing and opposing arbitrary power... by speaking and writing truth!"

Zenger.

After this eloquent appeal De Lancey's charge to the jury fell upon deaf ears. They had scarcely left the court-room when they returned Triumphant with the verdict, "Not guilty." The acquittal of scene of the trial was the new City Hall on Wall Street, which had been built in Bellomont's time; and never perhaps, not even on the day that witnessed the inauguration of George Washington as president of the United States, did it hear such a shout as that which greeted the acquittal of John Peter Zenger. The judges tried by threats to quell the tumult; they might as well have tried to stop the flow of the North River. An English naval officer, Captain Norris, of the frigate Tartar, called out that hurrahs were as lawful there as in Westminster Hall, where they were somewhat loud when the seven bishops were acquitted. At this popular allusion, renewed cheers upon cheers made the welkin ring. A public dinner was given to the venerable Hamilton by the mayor and aldermen, and when it was time for him to start for Philadelphia he was escorted to his sloop with drums and trumpets, like a conquering hero.

Here we may leave, for the present, the story of the political vicissitudes of the Citadel of America. We may hope to resume the narrative in a later volume, in its connection with the mighty drama of the rise and fall of New France. At present some features of social life among the Knickerbockers demand our attention.