multiplied without increase of knowledge," and Crabbe lamented in poetic strain,
A daily swarm that banish every Muse,
Come flying forth and mortals call them News.
A formidable check to the free expression of opinion existed in the shape of the law of libel, as administered at Westminster Hall during practically the whole of the eighteenth century. Several well-known trials find a place in English history, but there were, of course, many cases of undistinguished newspaper conductors who were punished for giving expression in their columns to what would be considered in the present day the most ordinary criticism of governments and statesmen. Trial by Jury, it is true, was the course pursued in these proceedings, but so little was committed to the twelve men empaneled that their assistance in the trial was almost purely formal. The jury were only asked to say whether they were satisfied that the particular passage branded as libelous was published by the accused; the judges decided whether a criminal or innocent interpretation should be put on the words. Neither was evidence in support of the truth of the alleged libel admitted, or was it even allowed to be urged in extenuation. With corrupt or servile judges, the results of trials for libel were not uncertain. After much controversy, and after the House of Lords had the year before thrown out the measure, there passed into law in 1792 Mr Fox's Libel Bill, which is briefly but comprehensively described by Hallam as, "declaring the right of the jury to find a general verdict upon the whole matter." The century closes with a piece of retrograde press legislation which led to many prosecutions, entitled "A Bill for preventing the mischief arising from newspapers being printed and published by persons unknown, and of regulating them in these respects."
Englishmen, now far removed from the partizan strife
