
Attorney-General v. Sillem and others, "The Alexandra " (1864), 12 W. R. 258.
Robinson v. Bland (1760), 2 Burr. Part IV. 1084.
Attorney-General v. Sillem and others, "The Alexandra " (1864), 12 W. R. 258.
“The law of England is a law of liberty”
R. v. Cobbett (1804), 29 How. St. Tr. 49.
Context: The law of England is a law of liberty, and, consistently with this liberty, we have not what is called an imprimatur (let it be printed); there is no such preliminary licence necessary. But if a man publish a paper, he is exposed to the penal consequences, as he is in every other act, if it be illegal.
“Ingersoll knew that he must make his appeal to man's brain.”
Introduction.
An American Bible (1912)
Context: Robert Ingersoll was humorist, iconoclast and lover of humanity.
It is said that the difference between man and the lower animals is that man has the ability to laugh.
When you laugh you relax, and when you relax you give freedom to muscles, nerves and brain-cells. Man seldom has use of his reason when his brain is tense. The sense of humor makes a condition where reason can act.
Ingersoll knew that he must make his appeal to man's brain.
Speech in the House of Commons (3 February 1808) on the British bombardment of Copenhagen, quoted in George Henry Francis, Opinions and Policy of the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B., M.P., &c. as Minister, Diplomatist, and Statesman, During More Than Forty Years of Public Life (London: Colburn and Co., 1852), pp. 1-3.
1800s
Forbes v. Cochrane and Cockburn (1824), 2 St. Tr. (N. S.) 159.
As Prime Minister at a National Party meeting in Stellenbosch, 10 April 1980, as cited in PW Botha in his own words, Pieter-Dirk Uys, 1987, p. 85
Such is the rule of honor.
Opening to 'Omerta', from the album Ashes Of The Wake
Lyrics
Source: Angliæ Notitia, 1676, 1704, p. 302: Cited in: Gerald Stourzh. "Liberal Democracy as a Culture of Rights: England, the United States, and Continental Europe." Bridging the Atlantic. (2002) p. 11
“We cannot make a law, we must go according to the law. That must be our rule and direction.”
Parkyns' Case (1696), 13 How. St. Tr. 72. Compare: "We cannot make laws". Reg. v. Nash (1703), 2 Raym. 990; Powell, J., Queen v. Read (1706), Fortesc. 99.