MR. ATTORNEY. I think the books are very full. It is said in Hawkins just now read, “Such scandal as is expressed in a scoffing and ironical manner makes a writing as properly a libel as that which is expressed in direct terms.” I think nothing can be plainer or more full than these words. MR. HAMILTON. I agree the words are very plain, and I shall not scruple to allow (when we are agreed that the words are false and scandalous, and were spoken in an ironical and scoffing manner) that they are really libelous. But here still occurs the uncertainty which makes the difficulty to know what words are scandalous, and what are not. For you say that they may be scandalous, whether true or false. Besides, how shall we know whether the words were spoken in a scoffing and ironical manner, or seriously? Or how can you know whether the man did not think as he wrote? For by your rule, if he did, it is no irony, and consequently no libel. But under favor, Mr. Attorney, I think the same book, and under the same section, will show us the only rule by which all these things are to be known. The words are these, “which kind of writing is as well _understood_ to mean only to upbraid the parties with the want of these qualities as if they had directly and expressly done so.” Here it is plain that the words are scandalous, scoffing, and ironical only as they are _understood_. I know no rule laid down in the books but this, I mean, as the words are _understood_. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Hamilton, do you think it so hard to know when words are ironical or spoken in a scoffing manner? MR. HAMILTON. I own it may be known. But I insist that the only rule by which to know is—as I do or can _understand_ them. I have no other rule to go by but as I _understand_ them. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. That is certain. All words are libelous or not as they are _understood_. Those who are to judge of the words must judge whether they are scandalous, or ironical, or tend to the breach of the peace, or are seditious. There can be no doubt of it. MR. HAMILTON. I thank Your Honor. I am glad to find the Court of this opinion. Then it follows that these twelve men must _understand_ the words in the information to be scandalous—that is to say, false. For I think it is not pretended they are of the _ironical_ sort. And when they _understand_ the words to be so, they will say that we are guilty of publishing a _false libel_, and not otherwise. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. No, Mr. Hamilton, the jury may find that Zenger printed and published those papers, and leave it to the Court to judge whether they are libelous. You know this is very common. It is in the nature of a special verdict, where the jury leave the matter of the law to the court.