what then? Was he to endure the calumnies, the unprovoked
calumnies, of that paper _for years_, and never reply
a word? It would have _cost him hundreds of pounds_ to
cause to be published in that paper _answers_ to a hundredth
part of the base attacks upon him contained in that
same paper. And, was he never to answer in any way?
Was he, when he had a hundred thousand men within his
hearing, to abstain from expressing his indignation at the
conduct of that paper, lest, by possibility, the indignation
might be catching? _The Morning Chronicle_, _The Courier_,
and _Times_, make no scruple to endeavour _to cause
him to be knocked in the head_; they point him out for
either hanging or murdering; they are ready beforehand
with an apology for any one who may take his life. And
is he, who can find no entrance into their columns, without
covering his paragraph with gold, to abstain from uttering
a word against them when he comes before a public
meeting, lest the people should espouse his cause and
demolish their windows? Whence have _they_ derived this
privilege of assaulting him with impunity? He has no
newspaper in his hands. He has no means of answering
them through the press. They assail him, sitting snugly
in their offices. They assail him daily. And, is he never
to open his lips at any time, or at any place?

"Where, then, is the ground of all this infamous abuse?
After accusing Mr. Hunt of having raised a mob for _treasonable_
purposes, some of the papers have, in the most
_serious_ manner, asserted that he was _insane_, and that he
had been to a _madhouse_! Is not this a pretty stretch of