Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

jury found the defendant guilty, and on motion for a new trial the Court of King's Bench held that the question had been correctly left to the jury. (a)

A body of police having dispersed an assembly of people at Birmingham, an indictment for seditious libel was preferred against the writer and publisher of certain resolutions agreed to by a body called the General Convention, condemning the act of the police as "a wanton, flagrant, and unjust outrage upon the people of Birmingham by a bloodthirsty and unconstitutional force from London, acting under the authority of men who, when out of office, sanctioned and took part in the meetings of the people, and now, when they share in the public plunder, seek to keep the people in social slavery and political degradation;" asserting that the people of Birmingham were "the best judges of their own right to meet in the Bullring or elsewhere, have their own feelings to consult respecting the outrage given, and are the best judges of their own power and resources to obtain justice;" and that the arrest of a particular individual (Dr. Taylor) "affords another convincing proof of the absence of all justice in England, and clearly shows that there is no security for life, liberty, or property till the people have some control over the laws they are called upon to obey."(b) Littledale, J., thus directed the jury as to the law: "You will first have to consider whether the statement at the commencement of the indictment, that there was an unlawful assembly which was dispersed by the police, be true or not, and, if it be true, you will then have to consider whether this publication was or was not a calm and temperate discussion of the events which had occurred; for if the object of it was merely to show that the conduct of the police was improper, that would not be illegal, because every man has a right to give every public matter a candid, full, and free discussion. If the language of this paper was intended to find great fault with the police force, even that might not go beyond the bounds of fair discussion; and you have to say, looking at the whole of this paper, whether or not it does so. With respect to the first resolution, if it contains no more than a calm and quiet discussion, allowing something for a little feeling in men's minds-for you cannot suppose that persons in an excited state will discuss subjects in as calm a manner as if they were discussing matters in which they felt no interest-that

(a) Sir Francis Burdett was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and a fine of 20001.

(b) Rex v. Collins; Rex v. Lovett (9 Car. & P. 456, 462).

[ocr errors]

PART IV.

CHAPTER IV.

PART IV.

CHAPTER IV.

What publications are libellous.

[ocr errors]

would be no libel; but you will consider whether the kind of terms made use of in this paper have not exceeded the reasonable bounds of comment on the conduct of the London police. With respect to the second resolution, it is no sedition to say that the people of Birmingham had a right to meet in the Bullring or anywhere else; but you are to consider whether the words that they are the best judges of their own power and resources to obtain justice,' meant the regular mode of proceeding by presenting petitions to the Crown or either House of Parliament, or by publishing a declaration of grievances; or whether they meant that the people should make use of physical force as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the people to take the power into their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder. The third resolution refers to the arrest of Dr. Taylor; and if the arrest of Dr. Taylor was considered to be illegal, the defendant had a right to discuss it in a calm, quiet, and temperate manner; and if Dr. Taylor had been arrested in a manner wholly illegal and improper, we may allow for some warmth of expression. I have already said that the people have a right to discuss any grievance that they have to complain of, but they must not do it in a way to excite tumult. It is imputed that the defendant published this paper with that intent, and, if he did so, it is in my opinion a seditious libel." (a)

"With respect to the intent of the defendant," said the same learned judge, "a man must be taken to intend the natural consequences of what he has done; and if this paper has a direct tendency to cause unlawful meetings and disturbances, and to lead to a violation of the laws, that is sufficient to bring it within the terms of this indictment, and it is a seditious libel." (b)

LIBELS ON THE CONSTITUTION GENERALLY.

"If it be the highest crime known to our laws to attempt to subvert by force the Constitution and State, it is certainly a crime, though of inferior magnitude, yet of great enormity to endeavour to despoil it of its best support-the veneration, esteem, and affection of the people. It is, therefore, a maxim of the law of England, flowing by natural conse quence and easy deduction from the great principle of selfdefence, to consider as libels and misdemeanors every species

(a) 9 Car. & P. 460, 461.
(b) 9 Car. & P. 466.

case.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each

of attack by speaking or writing, the object of which is wantonly to defame or indecorously to calumniate that economy, order, and constitution of things which make up the general system of the law and government of the country."(a)

"It is scarcely necessary to point out," said Fitzgerald, J., to the grand jury in the recent prosecutions of newspaper writers in Ireland for seditious libels, (b) "that to accomplish treasonable purposes, and to delude the weak, the unwary, and the ignorant, no means can be more effectual than a seditious press. With such machinery the preachers of sedition can sow widecast those poisonous doctrines, which, if unchecked, culminate in insurrection and rebellion. . . . . Words may be of a seditious character, but they might arise from sudden heat, be heard only by a few, create no lasting impression, and differ in malignity and permanent effect from writings."

Much of what has already been said in general as to the other kinds of seditious libels, applies also to the present class. Criticism on any part of the Constitution, made with a view to bring about improvements in it, are not interdicted; but attacks calculated to promote insurrection, and circulate discontent, to degrade and vilify the Constitution, to asperse its justice and anywise impair the exercise of its functions, are termed seditious libels, and punished as such. (c)

"It is open to the community and to the press," said a learned judge, (d) "to complain of a grievance. Well, the mere assertion of a grievance tends to create a discontent, which in a sense may be said to be seditious; but no jury, if a real grievance was put forward, and its redress bonâ fide sought, although the language used might be objected to-no jury would find that to be a seditious libel. It might be the province of the Press to call attention to the weakness or imbecility of a Government, when it was done for the public good. How closely that trenches on the law of sedition; and yet such writing, when bonâ fide, would receive protection from a jury."

PART IV.

CHAPTER IV.

The state of the country and of the public mind when the State of country publication takes place are material to be considered in and public mind determining whether the libel was published with a sedi

tious intention.

"If," said Fitzgerald, J.,(e) in one of the late prosecutions

(a) Holt's Law of Libel, 81 (2nd Edit.).
(c) Ib. 86. See per Fitzgerald, J., Reg. v.
(11 Cox Crim. Cas. 44).

(d) Fitzgerald, J., 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 57.
(e) 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 50. See also p. 59.

(b) 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 46. Sullivan and Reg. v. Piyot

to be considered.

PART IV.

for seditious publications in Ireland, "the country was free CHAPTER IV. from political excitement and disaffection, was engaged in the peaceful pursuits of commerce and industry, the publication of such articles as have been extracted from American papers might be free from danger and comparatively innocent; but in a time of political trouble and commotion, when the country has just emerged from an attempt at armed insurrection, and whilst it is still suffering from the machinations and overrun by the emissaries of a treasonable conspiracy hatched and operating in a foreign land, the systematic publication of articles advocating the views and objects of that conspiracy seems to admit but of one interpretation. The intentions of men are inferences of reason from their actions where the action can flow but from one motive, and be the reasonable result of but one intention."

Whole publica

tion to be

looked at.

Latitude allowed to

A particular passage in a work may constitute a seditious libel; but although the jury are to form their judgment upon the particular passage charged as such, they may compare it with the whole book, and see how it is qualified by it.(a) So with regard to newspaper articles: the jury are to consider not isolated passages, but the whole of the articles complained of. (b)

A considerable latitude is allowed to the publications of political writers. political writers. "In a free country like ours," said Lord Kenyon, C.J.,(c) "the productions of a political author should not be too hardly dealt with." And Fitzgerald, J., told the jury, in the case already referred to, not to pause, in dealing with the articles charged as seditious libels, upon an objectionable sentence here, or a strong word there; that it was not mere strong or turgid language that was to influence them; that to public political articles great latitude is given: dealing as they do with the public affairs of the day, such articles, if written in a fair spirit, and bona fide, often result in the production of great public good; and therefore the learned judge advised and recommended the jury to deal with the publications before them in a free, fair, and liberal spirit, and not to view them with an eye of narrow criticism. (d)

Seditious publi

The fact that the seditious writings are only copies of cations copied articles published in foreign newspapers, does not exempt the publisher in this country from liability.

from foreign

newspapers.

It was contended in Reg. v. Pigott (e) that the defendant

(a) Per Lord Kenyon, C.J., R. v. Reeves (2 Peake's N. P. Cas. 87). See also Rex v. Lambert and Perry (2 Camp. 400). (b) Per Fitzgerald, J. (11 Cox Crim. Cas. 58). (d) 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 59.

(c) Ib. 86.

(e) See 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 46.

PART IV.

was justified in publishing, as foreign news, articles of a seditious and treasonable character, extracted from American CHAPTER IV. newspapers. "I am bound," said Fitzgerald, J., to the grand jury, "to warn you against this very unsound contention; and I may now tell you, with the concurrence of my learned colleague (Deasy, B.), that the law gives no such sanction, and does not, in the abstract, justify or excuse the republication of a treasonable or seditious article, no matter from what source it may be taken. In reference to all such republications, the time, the object, and all the surrounding circumstances are to be taken into consideration, and may be such as to rebut any inference of a criminal intention in republication. If, for instance, one of the leading newspapers should, in good faith, publish the proceedings of a foreign conspiracy, with a view to communicate intelligence or a warning to the nation, accompanying it with proper editorial comments, the circumstances would in every rational mind, negative the idea of any seditious design. If, on the other hand, at a period of great political excitement, where a treasonable confederacy existing amongst them was urging the deluded people to armed insurrection, a journal was found habitually devoting a considerable portion of its space to the republication from a foreign source of treasonable or seditious articles, addressed to the people of this country, without one word of warning, or one note of disapproval, then it would be reasonable to infer that the publisher intended what would be the natural consequences of his acts, namely, to promote some seditious object. If the law be powerless in the case of such publications, then we may as well blot out from the statute-book the chapter on seditious libel, which would take away from society the great protection which the law affords to their institutions." (a)

Whether a newspaper article is original or not, may, however, be a material consideration in determining the intention with which it was published. (b)

older cases.

The following is a summary of the older cases decided Summary of the under this head, which are not numerous, owing probably to the fact that in the early times of our history, libels of this class were considered as partaking of the nature of treason. (c)

(a) 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 46, 47. Compare the remarks of the same learned judge at the end of p. 56. (b) See per Fitzgerald, J., Ib. 56. (c) Holt, L. L. 86. Williams, a barrister of the Middle Temple, was in the seventeenth year of James I. indicted, convicted, and executed for high treason, in writing two books, the one called "Balaam's Ass," and the other called "Speculum Regale," in which he predicted that the king would die in the year 1621 : (2 Roll. Rep. 88.)

« ZurückWeiter »