Or if some person should publicly repeat, in a manner not pleasing to his betters, the 10th and 11th verses of the 56th chapter of the same book, there Mr. Attorney would have a large field to display his skill in the artful application of his _innuendos_. The words are: “His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant,... Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough.” To make them a libel there is, according to Mr. Attorney’s doctrine, no more wanting but the aid of his skill in the right adapting of his _innuendos_. As for instance: His watchmen (_innuendo, the Governor’s Council and his Assembly_) are blind, they are all ignorant (_innuendo, will not see the dangerous designs of His Excellency_). Yea, they (_the Governor and Council meaning_) are greedy dogs which can never have enough (_innuendo, enough of riches and power_). Such an instance as this seems only fit to be laughed at; but I appeal to Mr. Attorney himself whether these are not at least equally proper to be applied to His Excellency and his ministers as some of the inferences and _innuendos_ in his information against my client. Then if Mr. Attorney is at liberty to come into court and file an information in the king’s name, without leave, who is secure whom he is pleased to prosecute as a libeler? And give me leave to say that the mode of prosecuting by information (when a grand jury will not find a true bill) is a national grievance, and greatly inconsistent with that freedom that the subjects of England enjoy in most other cases. But if we are so unhappy as not to be able to ward off this stroke of power directly, yet let us take care not to be cheated out of our liberties by forms and appearances. Let us always be sure that the charge in the information is made out clearly even beyond a doubt; for although matters in the information may be called _form_ upon trial, yet they may be, and often have been found to be, matters of _substance_ upon giving judgment. Gentlemen: The danger is great in proportion to the mischief that may happen through our too great credulity. A proper confidence in a court is commendable, but as the verdict (whatever it is) will be yours, you ought to refer no part of your duty to the discretion of other persons. If you should be of the opinion that there is no falsehood in Mr. Zenger’s papers, you will, nay (pardon me for the expression) you ought, to say so—because you do not know whether others (I mean the Court) may be of that opinion. It is your right to do so, and there is much depending upon your resolution as well as upon your integrity. The loss of liberty, to a generous mind, is worse than death. And yet we know that there have been those in all ages who, for the sake of preferment, or some imaginary honor, have freely lent a helping hand to oppress, nay to destroy, their country.