did inspect and report accordingly. But the report is not entered on the
Journals. It is, however, to be presumed that the greater number and the
better precedents supported the judgment. Allowing, however, their
utmost force to the precedents there cited, they could serve only to
prove, that, in the case of _words_, (to which alone, and not the case
of a _written_ libel, the precedents extended,) such a special averment,
according to the tenor of the words, had been used; but not that it was
necessary, or that ever any plea had been rejected upon such an
objection. As to the course of Parliament, resorted to for authority in
this part of the protest, the argument seems rather to affirm than to
deny the general proposition, that its own course, and not that of the
inferior courts, had been the rule and law of Parliament.

As to the objection, taken in the protest, drawn from natural right, the
Lords knew, and it appears in the course of the proceeding, that the
whole of the libel had been read at length, as appears from p. 655 to p.
666.[10] So that Dr. Sacheverell had _substantially_ the same benefit of
anything which could be alleged in the extenuation or exculpation as if
his libellous sermons had been entered _verbatim_ upon the recorded
impeachment. It was adjudged sufficient to state the crime _generally_
in the impeachment. The libels were given _in evidence_; and it was not
then thought of, that nothing should be given in evidence which was not
specially charged in the impeachment.

But whatever their reasons were, (great and grave they were, no doubt,)
such as your Committee has stated it is the _judgment_ of the Peers on
the Law of Parliament, as a part of the law of the land. It is the more
forcible as concurring with the judgment in the 11th of Richard II., and
with the total silence of the Rolls and Journals concerning any
objection to pleading ever being suffered to vitiate an impeachment, or