LAW REFORM.
447
and the credit of a witness may best be tried. If I wish to put a witness’s memory to the test, I am not allowed to examine him as to the contents of a letter or other paper which he has written. I must put the document into his hands before I ask him any questions upon it; though by so doing he at once becomes acquainted with its contents, and so defeats the object of my inquiry. That question was raised and decided in the Queen’s case, after solemn argument, and I humbly venture to think, upon a wrong ground, namely, that the writing is the best evidence and ought to he produced, though it is plain that the object here is by no means to prove its contents. Neither am I, in like manner, allowed to apply the test to his veracity : and yet how can a better means be found of sifting a person’s credit, supposing his memory to be good, than examining’ him to the contents of a letter, written by him, and which he believes to be lost ? There is a test, excluded in cases of libel, of which I shall say the less, that I brought in a Bill some years ago to remedy this defect. The main question in any prosecution for Libel being the innocence or guilt of the publication, is it not preposterous to keep the proof of its truth or falsehood from the view of the Court ? Almost every thing else is admitted which can throw any light upon the motives of the party ; but that is carefully shut out which is the best test by far of their nature, though certainly only an unilateral test, inasmuch as there must always be guilt, if there is falsehood, though truth does not of necessity prove innocence. Nay, the defendant cannot even be allowed to urge the truth in mitigation of punishment after conviction ; as if there were the same criminality in publishing