Now, let me take any one of you; let me place him here, where Mr. Magee stands; let him have his property at stake; let it be of less value, I pray you, than a compensation for two years’ imprisonment; it will, however, be of sufficient value to interest and rouse all your agony and anxiety. If you were so placed here, you would see before you the well-paid Attorney-General, perhaps, malignantly delighted to pour his rancor upon you; on the bench would sit the corrupt and partisan judge, and before you, on that seat which you now occupy, would be placed the packed and predetermined jury. I beg, sir, to know what would be your feelings, your honor, your rage; would you not compare the Attorney-General to the gambler who played with a loaded die? and then you would hear him talk, in solemn and monotonous tones, of his conscience! Oh, his conscience, gentlemen of the jury! But the times are altered. The Press, the Press, gentlemen, has effectuated a salutary revolution; a commission of defective titles would no longer be tolerated; the judges can no longer be bribed with money, and juries can no longer be----I must not say it. Yes, they can, you know--we all know they can be still _inquired out_, and “packed,” as the technical phrase is. But _you_, who are not packed, _you_, who have been _fairly_ selected, will see that the language of the publication before us is mildness itself, compared with that which the truth of history requires--compared with that which history has already used. I proceed with this alleged libel. The next sentence is this:-- “The profligate, unprincipled Westmoreland”--I throw down the paper and address myself in particular to some of you. There are, I see, amongst you some of our Bible distributors, “and of our suppressors of vice.” Distributors of Bibles, suppressors of vice--what call you profligacy? What is it you would call profligacy? Suppose the peerage was exposed to sale--set up at open auction--it was at that time a judicial office--suppose that its price, the exact price of this judicial office, was accurately ascertained by daily experience--would you call that profligacy? If pensions were multiplied beyond bounds and beyond example--if places were augmented until invention was exhausted, and then were subdivided and split into halves, so that two might take the emoluments of each, and no person do the duty--if these acts were resorted to in order to corrupt your representatives--would you, gentle suppressors of vice, call that profligacy?