ous
insults on the crown itself, the most seditious invectives, and most
dangerous positions, may be dispersed through the whole empire, without
any danger but to the original printer? And what reason, sir, can be
assigned, why that which is criminal in one man, should be innocent in
another?

Nor is this the only position which has been advanced contrary to the
laws of our country; for it has been asserted, that the general
character of an offender is a consideration foreign from that of his
immediate crime; and that whatever any man's past life has been, he is
only to be judged according to the evidence for the offence which is
then the subject of examination.

How much this opinion is consistent with the practice of our courts, a
very slight knowledge of their methods of proceeding will readily
discover. Is any villain there convicted but by the influence of his
character? And is not the chief question at a trial the past conduct of
the person at the bar?

Sir John BARNARD rose here, and spoke thus:--Sir, I rise up only to
answer a question, which is, whether properly or not, put to me, and
hope the irregularity will not be imputed to me, by the house, but to
the occasion which produces it.

I am asked, whether it is not the chief question at the bar of our
courts of justice, what is the character of the prisoner? and cannot but
feel some amazement that any man should be so ignorant of common
proceedings, and so much unacquainted with the execution of our laws, as
to have admitted a notion so chimerical.

The character of the prisoner is never examined, except when it is
pleaded by himself, and witnesses are produced to offer testimony in his
favour; that plea, like all others, is then to be examined, and is
sometimes confuted by contrary evidence. But, the character of a
criminal, though it may be urged by himself as a proof of his innocence,
is never to be mentioned by his prosecutor as an aggravation or proof of
his guilt. It is not required by the law, that the general character of
a criminal, but that the particular evidence of the crime with which he
stands charged, should be examined; nor is his character ever mentioned
but by his own choice.

Sir William YONGE spoke next, to the effect following:--Sir, to prove
the malignity of the intention with which this libel was inserted in the
daily paper, it cannot be improper to observe, that the embargo has been
for many days past the favourite topic of this