§ Mr. Serjeant Bestrose, agreeably to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill, for preventing all interlocutory or ex parte proceedings in criminal matters, from being published in newspapers. No man, he declared, had a greater disposition to support the liberty of the press than he had: none could more anxiously wish that that liberty should be extended to its utmost possible limits. No man, however, who was a friend to the press, on rational and liberal principles, but would wish to see it kept within some fair and satisfactory bounds. It was well known that not a case occurred in which the evidence, supposing it to be even of the most unsatisfactory and doubtful nature, did not find its way into the newspapers, thereby prejudicing the public mind, and there was too much reason to suppose, often even that of the jury, who, it was to be feared, could not always divest themselves of the prejudices they had imbibed in consequence of those partial statements. The practice alluded to was acknowledged by most of his brethren at the bar to be improper and illegal; and, in evidence that it was esteemed to be such, two editors of papers in the county of Sussex had lately been subjected to 6 months imprisonment for a similar offence. It might be asked, why, in such circumstances, bring in this bill? His answer was: because the law was not sufficiently known. It had been his misfortune to be counsel in two cases in which complaints of this nature had been made to and felt by him; the case of col. Despard, and the more recent one of Patch. In both of these cases it was submitted to him, in what way redress could be procured for the injury under which the party was supposed to labour. His answer was, as it would unquestionably be in any other case of the kind;—It was impossible that 796 any redress could be procured without increasing the odium and suspicion which formerly existed against them. The attorney-general, as the case now stood, could not properly complain, the law on this point not being sufficiently explicit. Neither he, nor the party likely to become the victim of this suspicion, being in a capacity to complain, the question was, Who could? The learned serjeant's object was to give a penalty of 100l. to any person who would prosecute in such a case; and, as he knew the public to be so desirous of hearing statements of this kind, and proprietors of newspapers inclined to stand at no expence or trouble which could gratify the public curiosity he proposed conferring a power of punishing a violation of the act by imprisonment. Not only were proceedings before magistrates, in cases of felony, improper subjects prematurely to meet the public eye, but there were also cases which occurred in the courts in West-minster hall, to which it was his meaning that the present bill should extend, and which he conceived to be equally improper as ex parte statements. These were motions for criminal informations. Such applications proceeded merely on affidavits on one side; and the facts, as appearing on the face of them, very frequently on proceeding to trial, turned out quite otherwise. It was, in such cases, highly improper that the observations of the judges on those ex parte and fallacious statements, should be read by persons called on, probably, afterwards, to decide on the merits of the case, and who thereby ran every risk of having their sentiments on the subject perverted. His bill, therefore, went to restrain the publishing in newspapers, not only of cases of felony before magistrates, but of criminal informations moved for in Westminster hall, thereby preventing the statement of the one party from meeting the public eye till the case should fairly come before a judge and jury. He accordingly concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the publishing in newspapers of all ex parte and interlocutory criminal proceedings.—This motion was seconded by Mr. D. Erskine, and leave was given accordingly.