the malice spoke for itself. Possibly the defendant would say that he was only the translator, and was not responsible for the opinion expressed in the pamphlet, but he would be prepared to shew that no Native translated that pamphlet; the errors and mis-interpretations were too gross and serious to admit of any doubt on that point. One word he would particularly call their attention to; Soorki was interpreted to mean brickdust-makers, whereas it must have been known to any native to mean spear-men. This was only one of many similar errors. It shewed that no Native could have been the translator. His Lordship would direct them in respect to the case, and the real question for their consideration would be libel or no libel. The connection of the defendant with the publication would be proved beyond doubt; the printer would prove having received the MSS. from the defendant and the corrections in the press-proof were in his hand-writing. It was difficult to believe that these pamphlets were circulated through the highest office of the Government with a view of mending the morals of the Natives and he mentioned this circumstance only to show the way in which the whole thing had been carried out. It proved that the defendant was no mere fanatic, or one holding strong opinions upon any particular subject, and who might have erred by expressing too pointedly those opinions; nothing of the kind. This pamphlet was not written with a view of setting wrong right, or of mending the existing state of morals; it was written with a view of setting race against race, the European against the Native. The contents of this pamphlet disclosed a state of things which are a shame and disgrace to any Government in the world, and he maintained that the Government of the country were on their trial, and that the Advocate General ought more properly to have been in his position as public prosecutor. Now for the pamphlet itself. It was in the form of a drama, that style of literary production being most congenial to the Native mind, and consequently most likely to draw the attention which was required. Some dramas, particularly the French, dealt with caricature and other harmless productions at which no sensible man would think of questioning. But when arson, forgery, fornications, and other cardinal vices, form the subject of the drama, then he maintained the caricature dropped to the ground. He maintained that the press or the drama were at liberty to
118
