Actions for libel had always afforded a wide field for the exercise of administrative authority. Under the Clarendon _régime_ the sentence pronounced by Chief-Justice Hyde upon Twyn, the printer, had fully sustained the traditions of the trials of Prynne, Bastwick, and Lilburn.[508] With the multiplication of political pamphlets after 1678 trials and convictions for libel became frequent. Within two years six important prosecutions of authors, printers, or publishers were instituted, and not only resulted almost always in the infliction of heavy punishments, but offered at the same time opportunities for many caustic and edifying remarks from the bench. Some time after, the number of trials for political libels and seditious words held within the space of seven months actually mounted to the total of sixteen.[509] The advantage of lectures thus delivered in court on general politics and the duties of a good subject was of considerable value to the government. In this part of their duties the judges rivalled even the courtly eloquence of divines whose chief occupation was the advocacy of the doctrine of non-resistance. On his elevation to the bench in October 1676 Sir William Scroggs “made so excellent a speech, that my Lord Montague, then present, told the king he had since his happy restoration caused many hundred sermons to be printed, all which together taught not half so much loyalty; therefore as a sermon desired his command to have it printed and published in all the market towns in England.”[510] It was afterwards made a ground for proceedings in Parliament against Scroggs that he had publicly spoken “very much against petitioning, condemning it as resembling 41, as factious and tending to rebellion, or to that effect”[511] and it was said that Sir Robert Atkyns was dismissed from the bench for contradicting a dictum of the Chief Justice while on circuit, “that the presentation of a petition for the summoning of Parliament was high treason.”[512] Similar behaviour was also made the subject of complaint against Mr. Justice Jones.[513] Even the courteous Lord Chancellor Finch, in delivering sentence upon Lord Stafford, undertook to prove by the way that Godfrey had been murdered, and London burnt, by the papists.[514] But most of all the influence and importance of the judges was shown in trials for treason. In those days state trials were not merely impartial inquiries into the question whether or no certain persons had committed certain acts, the nature of which was under examination: they were life-and-death struggles of the king and his government against the attacks of those who wished to subvert them. It was the business of those engaged in them to see that the king’s cause took no hurt. In this light they were universally regarded, and to this end their conduct was undertaken. Judges and jurors alike were engaged in the recognised task of the defence of the state. To the hearers it was