The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

INIPEittAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OP LORDS, July 5.
Their Lordships re-assembled for Parliamentary business at
Firße, ft...lock, when the LORD CIiAN,:ELLoa took his seat on
the'atoolsack.

MOROCCO.

The Earl of MINTO said he role for the purpose of
Tutting the question, of which he had given notice, respecting
*the geaval force to the coast of Morocco. lie understood the
rneion of this country between France and INforoci,o had
been rejected, and, though he deeply regretted it, he was not
surprised that such s.hould be the case, beteatsee he did not
think they had placed themselves in such a position
as to afford to any weak State that *entrance of their seepert
which symptoms of preparation on their part wneltt afford.
Zile independence of Meroeco could not be an object of indif-
erence to that [lime, for there were jeattitions on the coast
that empire which would be most iejurious and dangerous to
the interests of this country if they fell into the hands of any
other State, and a place of importance in the neighbourhood of
slim coast. ;he island of Minorca would be placed in jeopardy.
tie would have felt less anxiety iin this subject
if he 'cesuld find anywhere in this country the means of making
e display of strength on that coast. But the naval force of the
country was so reduced, that he did not know where his Noble
Friend opposite could look for the means of producing an
impression theme. Negotiations were good, but it was
necessary they should be backed by some forrese.
MHear, hear)—and he had the highest authority in that
ouse, that of the Noble Duke opposite, for such an opin on.
Ina debate on the 14th of August, 183 e, on the state of theie
commercial relations, the Noble Duke said he considered the
state of those relations was owing, in a great degree, to the ex-
tensive weakness and tottering condition of their naval esta-
blishment; and, further on, he said he considered the naval
force of the,eountry to be in too feetee and tottering a condition
to answer the purpose intended, of giving protection to
their commercial interests in all parts of the globe. Ste+
was the language of the Noble Duke in the
year 1838, at a time as hen they had eighteen sail of the
line in commission in every part of the world, besides a
reserve at home of four or five ships of the line ; bet
it was far different new, though it was quite Obvious
eftre were questions pending, not only with regard to
Morocco, but with regard to the Oregon and Texas.
The present Government had succeeded to a fleet of twenty
ships of the line. They were justified in making some reduc-
tion in that number, because there had not been of late the
same necessity for keeping up a great naval force as had pre-
viously existed. But they had made reductions to a degree
which before had never been known or dreamt of. At the pre-
ssent moment there was not in commission a single ship of the
line, except those employed as flag-ships for admirals. There
were nine ships of the line only in commission at the present
moment. Of these, two were in the Last Indies, one in the West
Indies; and there were three guard-ships. In the Mediter-
ranean fleet User-owes only one iihip of the line, and that was
the flag ship; and there was the Albion, which had recently
been employed as the flag ship at Cork. The navy of England
consisted of only nine ships of the line, and that at a time when
the state of affairs abroad was such as necessarily to create the
.greatest anxiety. He did not say there was any danger of war
bet the manner in which the solution of the questions at present
pending would be brought about, would depend greatly
ujithe respect in which we were held, and that respect
w
he increased by our keeping up a respectable naval force,
He pod his Noble Friend would tell them that he had re-
ps:success to appeal to. Considering the present state of
the French fleet, we ought to have have an increase
beet in the Mediterranean. We ought not to abdi
cafe the command of the Mediterranean entirely to
Feanee, but still to maintain our power in that sea. Not
only had his Noble Friend reduced the number of the ships of
the line, but he had also reduced the number of smaller
vessels.—( Hear, hear.) He besought their Lordships to
recollect all that had been said on former occasions as to
the necessity of keeping a reserve at home for the protection
of our own kbores. He had not any apprehension of any
attack on our own shores, but he regretted the
reductions which had taken place in the naval force
in the Mediteranean. He could not see without uneasiness
the command of the naval force destined by France to act against
Morocco confided to the Prince de Joinville. would re-
frain from saying anything reflecting on the character or con-
duct of his Royal Highness, but their Lordships could not but
recollect what had passed on a. former occasion, and knowing
'the sentiments which had recently been expressed by his Royal
Hi s, he saw his appointment with regret. The
Nerll7 Earl concluded by putting the question of
which he had given notice, namely, If it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to adopt any,
and whist. measures to send to the coast of Morocco or else-
where euch naval force as may suffice for the protection of
Brit'sh interests ?
The Earl of HADDINGTON was prepared to answer the
question of which the Noble Earl had given notice as to the
sending a British force to Morocco.
The Earl of MiNTO had yesterday given notice of his
wasp*iota in the exact terms in which he had put it, and it so
inserted in the votes. He had understood that the Secretary
of &site would communicate his motion to his Noble Friend.
Lord BROUGHAM—Read, read.
The Earl of MINTO then read the notice from the votes in
the precise words in which he had put the question.
The Earl of HADDINGTON had not read the votes.
Rut he woeld take the Noble Earl's question in the terms
giverf—Morocco or elsewhere. They had heard the speech of
the Noble Earl with which he thought proper to introduce
the (motion. The practice of making long speeches in putting
questions was a most inconvenient one, and one
to which the Noble Earl was very partial. He
was about to reply te the Noble Earl's question, not to his
speech. had he had any idea that the Noble Earl was
ab 00.... to put a question respecting the distribution of the
*mile force of the British navy, he should have thought
it necessary to refresh his memory as to details
before he came down to answer that statement.
lie never was more taken by surprise in his life than by the
long speech, the omstibus relates, connected with the British navy,
"that had been made by the Noble Earl. He thought the Noble
Earl ought to have waited for the presence of his Noble Friend
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as his speech involved so
much of diplomacy. The Noble Earl complained of the Go-
vernment leaving only one ship of the line in the 'Mediterra-
nean. At the time that step was taken there was not the
slightest chance of the occurrences taking place
which had been lately threatened. It was not supposed by
the British Government, that because the French chose
to have a sailing squadron in the Mediterranean, that therefore
this country was to follow their example. The Noble Earl
abotild recollect, too, that the Mediterranean was not a distant
sea. In answer to the questiun of the Noble Earl, he begged to
state that her Majesty's Government had sent to Morocco such
forces as they thought the circumstances required, and if it was
necessary, it was in their power to add to that force. With re-
epect to elsewhere, he begged to state that the Govern-
merit had such forces in every station as they had
thought right for the preservation of British interests.
They had greatly increased their force on the Coast
of Africa. Ships had been sent sir, and others had been or-
dered there, and nothing would have prevented them from
sending them out before but the necessity of having a force in
Ireland. He thought that he had proved that the statement of
the Noble Earl that Ministers had neglected British
interests, in all parts of the world, was totally without founda-
tion. As he had stated before, the Government had sent such
forces to Morocco as they thought the circumstances re-
quired, and that they would add to these forces if necessary.
lie trust d, however, that the anticipated events in Morocco
would not take place.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
A Message from the Commons, consisting of Sir George
leeet, and other Members, brought up the Bank Charter Bill,
the Prisons' Discipline (Scotland) Bill), the Linen Misnufac-
tures s Ireland) Bill, the Education of the Poor Bill, the
Edinbuiesti, Leith, and Granton Bill, and several other Bills.
The Marquis of Londonderry, the Earl of Rosehery, and
Lord Ca-npbell, rose simultaneously to address the House,
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY appealed to the Lord
Chancellor whetter he had not a right to address their
Lordships on the subject which had just been under dis_
cession.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that, as the irregularity
had begun, he. did not know where it toss to terminate,
The Earl of lADDINGTON hoped that this would he
borne ;n mind in future. 'I hey often hail Noble Lords tieilig
to speak five or six times when there was no enestioti before
the Muse, and sometimes when there was s question.
'-aet !Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he begged in
move that the Noble Earl's returns be printed.— (Laughter. )
He way surprised to see the extreme sensitivenc.s of the Noble
Earl with regerd to the force in the Mediteteatiean.
After the Acar statement *Wlikh the* had heard
fermi the Noble Lord the Ste, retary ,sf Mate, for Foreign ,
Affairs on a. previeeis oreacton—after the Peels-
nations which hail_bie,e made, he thought it was high!y erect to re-open toe subject. The Nettle Farl (Aberdeen )
had publie affairs, not only with Credit to hirnsele
.vantage to the reentry, lie thoeeht that it was lint
ieetioe the Noble Earl to make their! Fetharks..("• Move.")
Besse Earl of MIN TO said the. noble Marquis had made his
'ep -ech upon an intittatine that he was abiut to move.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he would with-
craw his motion, --(Laughter.)
'lie Marsrltl of LANSDOWNE said that the motion had
been made, and it could not now be withdrawn.
mute
The LORD CHANCELLOR said no motion had been
, and he conll tint pet a nonentity.—( Laughter, and
trite; of " Qeestion. eteestion.")
Lord CAMPlttisl: rose to move the ordi e of the day for
'go'ne into feemmittee on the Law of Libel Act Amendment
when

and the judge was baund to sit silently and hear it. Well,
then he offers in evidence some vague rumours ; he is told
the court cannot receive it, and the jury find a verdict. of ac-
quittal. Such wooed be the effect of his Nob'e Fr,erd's Bill.

When a man was vilified, was he not to appear in a court of
justice, was not that the height of injustice, and what was the
answer to this ? Why, that the Attorney-General will con-
duct his defence. This was one of the principles of his Noble
Friend's Bill. He was sure, if their Lordships considered the
subject, notwithstanding all the praises of his Noble Friend of
his own Bill, they would feel assured that it was impossible to
pass the Bill consistently v ith a due regard to justice. Under
the provisions of the Bill the whole of the Royal Family
might be libelled with impunity, and under it the character
and conduct of a foreign sovereign might be put in issue in the
courts of this country. such were the consequences of his
Noble Friend's Bill, that he felt called upon to propose that the

'rhe Earl of RosforßY said, before the order of the day
`as read, he wished to state lhat, in con?etinence nt leaving
town, he `X nt)lct not be able to act as a Member of the Secret
Committee: nn the Post-office.
The fluke r:f wEI.I.INGTON then prop() ed that the
Cobh Earl's name should be withdrawn, and that that of the
Ea,t of Auekland should be substituted.
Lord BaOUGHAM said his Noble. Kinsman would, no
doubt,"he alt excellent member of the Committee; but. his
aprointtnent nnu#tl htt a deviation from the principle laid down,
inasmnc.ll Aft Pt,. Was formerly a Cabinet Minister.
Lord CA,MPI3ELL said that objection would equally apply
to his Noble and Learned Friend.— (Great laughter.)
'pm name of Lord Auckland was then added to the Corn-
Malec,

Bill should be read a third time that day three months.
Lord BROUGHAM iurported the third reading of the
Bill. Ile must confess that he was not a little alarmed when
his Noble Friend rose from the Woolsack to aclre-is the House

immediately af, or his Noble Friend who had moved the third
reading of the Bill. But his Noble and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack had relieved him of much of his anxiety by the ar-
guments he had wed, fur they' rather made for his Noble and
Learned Friend (Lord Campbell) than a2ainst him.—( Hear,
hear.) The appeal to the law by his Noble Friend might
have done a fete years ago, but it would be of no avail now. As
the law now stool, his Ni;ble Friend behind him ( Lord Camp-
bell, and his Noble Friend at the table ( Lori Monteagle),
might join together to libel him ( Lord Brougham)—they
m'glit give as much evidence against him as they pleased, he
being out of Court. Such was the law as it now stood, but
by the law as it was now proposed, no such thing could happen,
because the Attorney-General would prosecute the patties,
and would rebut the libel by proving its falsehood. The
Noble and Learned Lord having most humorously described
the manner in Khich a defence was got up to a charge of libel,
observed that it was always assumed that the truth could be

BANK CHARTER BILL,
"thi the motion of ►he Duke of WELLINGTON, the Bank
Charter Bill ►sae read a first t►me and ordered to be printed,
the Noble Duke stating that he would take the second reading
o►► Tuesday neat.

_
PUBLIC HEALTH.
The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that, en this
day week, he ,hould move a humble aldress to her Majesty on
the lanat9ry condition of the people.
LAW OF LIBEL.
tord CAMPBELL moved the order of the day for the
Third reading of the Law of Libel Act Amendment Bill. He
said the time had at last arrived when their Lordships had to
take into consideration this important Bill. He had hoped
that their Lordships would have agreed to it, as being founded
on the same principles as the Act of last session, but he had
the mortification of understan•ling that it was to be opposed in
quarters entitled to the highest respect. In the Plll of last
session their Lordship dealt with the subject of private de-
famation, and caused a Bill with the double object of pr.,teet-
lag private character and punishing slanderers. Ile had the
sat' lion of stating that that Bill worked well. In conse-
quenW of more stringent enactments, more than one slanderous
weekly paper had been dropped, and frivolous prosecutions
against other journals had been checked. The great principle
of that Bill was that it admitted the plea of the truth of a fact
as a justification on a charge of libel. This plea had been here-
tofore excluded, both before the jury and after the verdict, as a
plea for the mitigation of punishment. Nay, it was con-
sidered an aggravation of the offence, for the maxim arose,
-the greater the truth the greater the libel. Their
Lordships were shocked at such a doctrine, and enacted, that if
a dekaOarit proved a thing ,to be true, and that he published it
At. the public good, he should be entitled to an acquittal. But
this twin(p4e applied only to private cases and actions between
imlirldtiali. With regard to Government prosecutions, the old
IgsVegutill prevailed. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord
"rolegikraff, 'he letter which he had addressed to Sir James
0 . ...--/, ta. ,_ . defect in the law. He (Lord
rauem, 00.... , , - seat one, but he
Campbell , Pained or ~
thou
it,maorcitenowledesi it -to he
Pr tions, k,„„ezPedlent to 4,,,,- 1 ---,,"''.7
sitably afterwards be eis. 1 t
i,;i , • i„. ---wingythat it rerrealt
.ilinotezeo.up:iinibeeig":oitdtsidt
ntootp,... _ . i
ion
..... .
the _.,„Rfirereign was a
puove ones.
1 awahalerees ao rd
ea seditious 4.
.
" l'Oto to appi B
Tient stated certain specific , low evidence to be atm.
hoc ra-lbotight Y;t But
shm9hstrous ',tent. to flow
a.,ls Noble and L --
fllKooti of these facts ould be eonP_!nelple that the truthonrd:/
pee a ekue in 1-....__,
-01 ' WMCh . der d •
3 Man assert 1 ale
immaterial. the objections f h•
ecl that troops were being i Bill, which would
re being year, not have earned Fr e t,
re equally applied I "
to the 13.11
0 4 Or la..

proved, while under the present law it was impossible to do it.
He had known juries, over and ever again, l revailed upon to

give verdicts against the truth of the case. The law, as' it at
present existed, exposed juries to the arts and stratagems and
declamations of counsel. The Government, as the law now
stood, always went into Court with a stain upon it. Let their
Lordships look to the case of Sir Arthur Piggot. He charged
the Lords of the Admiralty with sending over troops in nmea-
worthy ships, and if that prosecution had been proceeded with,
if it had gone to trial, it would have been impossible, as the
law now stood, for them to have defeated the slanderer, and
have proved the truth of the libel, as the evidence that would
have been offered for that purpose would have been re-
jected. He was some time ago counsel in a case against the
c:ergy of Durham, he did all he could to procure a verdict, lie
got the jury to take three or four hours to consider their ver-
dict ; they at last found a special verdict, rather for than
against him, and the detendant was never brought up for judg-
ment. If the law had been in the state in which it was now

proposed to place it,- the case need not have occupied ten
minutes. If there was any one principle in English law which
was clear and understandable, it was that whatever tended to
keep the public opinion with the law, avid against the criminal,
was wholesome, and that whatever tended to set it against the

prosecutor, and against the law, was to be deplored. Never
had he seen any man brought up for judgment in such a case
without public s)mpathy.being in his favour. The object of
this Bill was not to make public libel defensible, but only to
provide that the cafe should be left with the jury,
Ills Noble and Learned Friend said there ought to be an ex-
ception in the Bill with respect to foreign Princes. With re-
spect to the Sovereign of this country, the reason fur the cxecp-
obvious. As, according to the laws of this country,
-;mneachable, it would be perfectly incon-
- There was not one of
'o the present

sent abroad in transport ships that were not seaworthy, he
might state that without any sed,itioue motiees bi• :rout an
wish to stir up disaffeetion AtflAitAg thZ soldiers. He might be ac-
tneted byte patei'elle *lsla to promote the welfare of their defenders
In Scribe: Or, suppose it had been stated that the army of the
Noble Duke in Spain was not
,proberly ittitipllid with pro'si-
sinus, in conseouenee of _otter fault of the Commissariat, would
they not snots the defendant to show that what h- stated was
nersfeetly true, as in doing so he must be assisting the leaders
of the army in this country ? Or, suppose th, charge Wel
made against the Queen's Mlnislees of rechiVing
foreign Powers, hie ought lo be alto*Cd le pioare the truth of
that stares-dent, since th'e atteniet tb do so would only cover
him With confusion. Nri tsbuld suppose another case—that of
a person of Whom it was published that he erred leteeas in
the Pest-Alec ,• would it not bc monetreSe at the defendant
rltotald not be allowed to prt•:e ‘.V; truth ? The prevent prac-
tice was most injtilel;iiis to lam individual, if acted upon; and
their LOrdships must consider it as if it were acted Iva, be,.
cause it possibly might be at the pleasure of the Attetricys
General. It was injurious to the individual, beeles'e all hints
cent, praiseworthy person might be tOnitiettel Of a crime,
whereas he ought to be etwardeal S eled it Was also most inju-
rims, to the public:, betanee paserlo would be apprehentiVe
stating facts which might be necessary:, 07httre the
truth could net be proved at live that, or after
coatittion, it operated it favour of the defendant;
Where the libel was fel'n'l l hail been shown by Mr. Sterlaie,
one of the len, tinininissioners, they, reels! hot believe the
charge Ali false where evidence of the falsity was not ad-
rattled, and punishment ateSt be awarded as if the facts were
true. It might t!r- laid, that though the facts were true, the
publicatir.t: Was wrong, and that the press ought hot to meddle
with such subjects. They might say, as a Learned Chief
Justice, in the sister islend said, that the Houses of Parlia.tnetit
were the ;dente where these maters were tiS be canvassed:
Ever if that were so, the law of England was defective in
this respect—that they would provide no remedy for wilful ca-
lumny. They plectsti in the same situation the person who
stated whet sag true from laudable motives, end the person
why sealed what was false with the worst intentions. Then
they departed from all analogy With regard to the law of libel,
for in other rases then allowed the circumstances to be given
in eeidences but nOt with regard to libel. For instance, in a
case If assault, all that led to the assault might be given in
evidence. The defendant might even give in evidence that he
was libelled by the prosecutor, and that being se provoked, he
laid a horsewhip on his back. After the Bill of last year, how
incongruous was the law if they refetttd this Bill ? Under
the law of last sear, in a prosecution for private defamation,
the truth might he eititen in evidence, but if the Attorney-
General filed sit eX officio information, and called the yrivate
defers etien a seditious libel, the truth could not
bit given in evidence,--(Cries of " Hear, hear). It
seemed to him thet, in this way, they brought great scandal
on the administration of justice. He believed there was one
authority against him, for whom he had the sincerest respect.
lie was afraid the Bill was not approved of by the Lord Chief
Justice of the Queen's Bench, one of the most zealous, steady,
and enlightened friends of liberty that ever blessed this coun-
try.—(Dear, hear.) But he must remind his Noble and
Iseeteted Friend, that he stood alone in thinking the truth
should be excluded. All those who were examined before the
Committee on this subject, with the exeeption of his Noble and
Learned Friend were of opinion that the truth should be ad.
milted as an ingredient. His Noble and Learned Friend be-
hind him, and the late Chief Bacon of the Exchequer, whose
memory he should always regard with respect and affection,
were of opinion that the truth should be admitted. He was
afraid that his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack was
opposed to the 13iil ; and he admitted that the majority of the
puisne judges were against it. He entertained the very
highest respect for the opinions of those venerable magistrates,
but he must confess, that he would much rather ask them how
the law is, than how it ought to be.—( Hear, hear.) The con-
stant practice of any system blinded the most
acute to its defeats; and there was a difficulty in throwing
aside an old system, with which persons had became thoroughly
acquainted and adopting a new one. It was but right to
say that those same Judges had, with one exception, given it
as their opinion that the Bill for allowing counsel to pri-
soners was unjust and unnecessary ; although now, he believed,
they all admitted that it was a splendid improvement of the
law. His Noble and Learned Friend would also recollect that
the Judges almost unanimously opposed the mitigation of the
penal code. When the Bill was brought in making forgery no
longer a capital crime, the majority of the Judges foretold that
it would be followed by a vast increase in the crime of
forgery, and by the deitruction of commercial credit.
They had been equally hostile, equally unanimous,
and equally zealous against the Bill of last year, which
had been adopted unanimously by their Lordships, and
all but unanimously by the other House of Parliament.
Now, with regard to the exclusion of the truth in cases
of libel, it should be remembered that it was only judge-made
laws. There was no Act of Parliament, there was no imme-
morial usage to be pleaded in support of the practice. All the
decisions on the subject were fluctuating and contradictory. It
was only in 1792, that it had been declared to be law. In the
reign of Charles 11., Judge Pemberton had allowed the truth to
be given in evidence in a case of libel, on a charge
that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey had killed himself.
In 1702, in the case of the King v. Fuller. which was a prose-
cution, for a seditious libel, Lord Holt had urged the defendant
to give evidence of the truth of the libels. "If your state-
ments are true," said Lord Holt, addressing the 'defendant,
" bring forward your witnesses, and I will hear them." The
first case in which evidence of the truth was excluded,.was the
case of the King v. Franklin, tried before Chief Justice Wrenne
in 1731. In 1777, on the trial of Horne Tooke, before Lord
Mansfield, the defendant was permitted to give evidence of the
truth of his statements. His case broke down, and so the pro-
secutors had reason to rejoice that the evidence had been ad-
mitted. It was not until Mr. Fox's Libel Bill was passing
through that House, that the judges gave it as their opinion
that the truth could not be admitted. Yet, en that very occa-
sion, they declared one thing to be law, which the Parliament,
in that very Bill, declared to be not law. He trusted, there-
fore, their Lordships would not hesitate to adopt this improve-
ment, and complete the law of last year. There was one ex-
ception made by the Bill, and only one ; and that was in con-
formity with the maxim of the law, which declared that the
Sovereign could do no wrong. He therefore excluded from the
operation of the Bill all personal attacks on the Sove-
reign. With regard to the procedure to be adopted,
he proposed that as it was in many cases of public libel
impossible to separate matters of fact from matters of com-
ment, so as to enable a justification to be pleaded, as in cases of
private libel; that, in these cases of public libel, the defendant
should give notice to the prosecutor of his intention to prove
the truth of his assertions, and that the facts should go to the
jury, who, if they should be of opinion that the facts were un-
true, or that the defendant had been influenced by bad motives,
woul I find him:guilty. The judges, although they disapproved of
the principle, admitted that this was the best method of carry-
ing it out. The law had been almost forgotten, in consequence
of the mildness of the executive administration, bnt the law still
remained, and might be revived at any time. He trusted their
Lordship% would pass this measure, for he considered that
Englishmen ought to hold their rights by law, and not by the
forbearance of the public prosecutor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the measure as one
calculated to do great evil. It was sufficient to refer to the
opinion of the judges to know that the law of England excluded
evidence of the truth in these cases, and he imagined that those
learned persons had declared what the law always had been,
and not merely what it 'Was at the time they had declared it. In
an action for damages, the defendant might plead the
truth as justification, and the judge state to the
jury the nature of the libel, the nature of the justification,
and told them if they were of opinion the justification had
been mode out, they must acquit the defendant. If the prose-
cution was by indictment, by the late measure justification
could also be pleaded. In these cases the functions of the
judge and of the jury were clearly defined. The object of
pul,lic libels was to incite to a breach of the public peace, or
to bring the Government into contempt. It was no defence
uj such conduct that the libels were true—that would possibly
only increase their evil effects. Now if the course proposed
by this Bill were to be adopted, if only one fact alleged could
he proved true, it would be competent to the jury to find the
defendant not guilty, at their caprice and discretion. Their
imaginations might be influenced by an artful address, and if
only one part Were proved it would be competent to them to
ret4rtt a terdir:t of acquittal. It was putting in the hands of
inries an uncontrolled power, which might lead to great abuses
in the administration of ju,tice. Notice would be given in
every ut,e in order to secure the opportunity of making an in-
flammatory address to the jury. Parties prosecuted for these
seditious libels generally were persons who fancied themselves
orators, and defended themselves, and how did they defend
themselves? Why generally by a repetition of the calumnies.
Now the judge could interrupt him, and prevent his going
on, but would that be the case if this Bill were to become law ?
Why, a party might come into a c urt of justice and repeat
the charge, and the judges could not interfere in any way. fhe
party said he should offer evidence of the truth of the charge,