Page:Nil Durpan.djvu/174

 discuss any grievance that they have to complain of. In Rex V. Thomas Packe, Mr. Erskine in his celebrated speech, on behalf of the defendant, contended "that every man not intending to mislead but seeking to enlighten others with what his own reason and conscience, however erroneously, have dictated to him as truth, may exert his whole faculties in pointing out the most advantageous changes in establishments which he considers to be radically defective or sliding from their object of this country, has a right to do, if he contemplates only what he thinks would be for its advantage, and but seeks to change the public mind by the conviction which flows from reasonings dictated by conscience." In the same case Mr. Erskine uttered these remarkable words—"As infallibility and prefection belong neither to human individuals nor to human establishments, except to be the policy of all free nations, as is most peculiarly the principle of our own, to permit the most unbounded freedom of discussion." I believe in the present day the opinions so expressed by this truly great and good man, are recognised as sound and constitutional principles, and which I unhesitatingly put forth for your consideretion [sic] and guidance in determining the all—important question of libel or no libel.

In a recent case, Rex V. Collins, Mr. Justice Little-dale ( in summing up ) says, "every man has a right to give every public matter a candid, full, and free discussion. The people have a right to discuss any grievances that they have to complain of." Many other cases establish the same doctrine. Supposing the pamphlet in qeustion [sic] was a libel in their opinion, it remained to be seen whether Mr. Long had been actuated by an honest and conscientious conviction that he was acting for the best interests of society, not merely reflecting the opinion of the Native community, as had been suggested on his behalf; for, this, he was bound to say, would not afford a shadow of an excuse. The question was whether or not the act of Mr. Long in publishing and circulating the book would negative the legal inference of malice. If Mr. Long had acted as the tool of a Native community, that would be no justification whatever, unless he had a conscientious belief at the time that he was forwarding the interests of society by publishing that pamphlet. How were corruptions to be attacked if the liberty of the press were not to exist? Did not the press