A Limerick paper, which I suppose professes to support certain loyal and John Bullish principles of freedom, has, in an essay for advocating the liberty of the Press, the following clause: "For lawless licence of discussion never did we advocate, nor do we now." What is lawless licence of discussion? Is it not as indefinite as the words contumely, reproach, defamation, that allow at present such latitude to the outrages that are committed on the free expression of individual sentiment? Can they not see that what is rational will stand by its reason, and what is true stand by its truth, as all that is foolish will fall by its folly, and all that is false be controverted by its own falsehood? Liberty gains nothing by the reform of politicians of this stamp, any more than it gains from a change of Ministers in London. What at present is contumely and defamation, would at the period of this Limerick amendment be "lawless licence of discussion," and such would be the mighty advantage which this doughty champion of liberty proposes to effect.
I conclude with the words of Lafayette, a name endeared by its peerless bearer to every lover of the human race, "For a nation to love liberty it is sufficient that she knows it, to be free it is sufficient that she wills it."
