I know how difficult it is to communicate distinct ideas on such a subject, through the medium of general propositions, without particular illustration; and in order that I may be distinctly understood, though at the hazard of being tedious, I will illustrate the important principle which I have ventured to advance, by examples.

By the use of an example he does make himself distinctly understood.

Let us, then, suppose a small community of five persons, separated from the rest of the world; and, to make the example strong, let us suppose them all to be engaged in the same pursuit, and to be of equal wealth.  Let us further suppose that they determine to govern the community by the will of a majority; and, to make the case as strong as possible, let us suppose that the majority, in order to meet the expenses of the government, lay an equal tax, say of one hundred dollars on each individual of this little community.  Their treasury would contain five hundred dollars.  Three are a majority; and they, by supposition, have contributed three hundred as their portion, and the other two (the minority), two hundred.  The three have the right to make the appropriations as they may think proper.  The question is, How would the principle of the absolute and unchecked majority operate, under these circumstances, in this little community?

     JOHN C. CALHOUN:  Speech on The Force Bill, 1833

The example should be taken from the same phase of life as the proposition it explains.  As Calhoun was discussing governmental regulation he supposed an example from majority rule.  In the next the topic is copyright, so the illustration is not taken from patents.  In introducing your own examples avoid the trite, amateurish expression “take, for instance.”

Now, this is the sort of boon which my honorable and learned friend holds out to authors.  Considered as a boon to them, it is a mere nullity; but, considered as an impost on the public, it is no nullity, but a very serious and pernicious reality.  I will take an example.  Dr. Johnson died fifty-six years ago.  If the law were what my honorable and learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of Dr. Johnson’s works.  Who that somebody would be it is impossible to say; but we may venture to guess.  I guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson of a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the doctor’s servant and residuary legatee, in 1785 or 1786.  Now, would the knowledge that this copyright would exist in 1841 have been a source of gratification to Johnson?  Would it have stimulated his exertions?  Would it have once drawn him out of his bed before noon?  Would it have once cheered him under a fit of the spleen?  Would it have induced him to give us one more allegory, one more life of a poet, one more imitation of Juvenal?  I firmly believe not.  I firmly believe that a hundred years ago, when he was writing our debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, he would very much rather have had twopence to buy a plate of shin of beef at a cook’s shop underground.

     THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY:  Copyright, 1841