PART IV.

One Brewster was indicted and convicted in the 15th CHAPTER IV. Chas. II., for printing and publishing a libel called "The Phoenix, or the Solemn League and Covenant," in which it was declared that a king abusing his power to the overthrow of religion, laws, and liberties, may be controlled and opposed; and if he sets himself to overthrow all these by arms, then they who have the power, as the estates of the land, may and ought to resist by arms. (a)

In the 29th Chas. II. an information was filed against one Harrison, charging that he, maliciously and traitorously intending to stir up sedition and to create a disturbance between the King and his people, had published, uttered, and proclaimed of and concerning the Government and rule of England, and of and concerning the traitors who adjudged King Charles I. to death, that the Government of the kingdom consists of three estates, and that if a rebellion should happen in the kingdom, unless that rebellion was against the three estates, it was no rebellion. The court, supposing that the words did tend to set on foot that position upon which the war levied in 1641 by the two Houses against the King was grounded, were much displeased that the counsel for the defendant would pretend to defend them, or to put any tolerable sense upon them, and gave judgment for the King. (b)

In the 5th Anne Dr. Brown was convicted, on an information, of having published a libel, entitled "Mercurius Politicus," reflecting on the State and Constitution, as settled at the Revolution, which he represented as the "destruction of the laws of England."(c)

A treatise on hereditary right, by Bedford, was held to be a libel, though it contained no reflection upon any part of the then Government, in the 12th Anne.(d)

An information was filed in 1754 against Richard Nutt for printing and publishing a certain false, wicked, scandalous, seditious, and malicious libel, entitled The London Evening Post, tending to represent this kingdom in a miserable and wretched state and condition, and with a view to traduce the late happy Revolution, and to suggest that it was an unjustifiable and unconstitutional proceeding; and also to dispute and call in question the settlement and limi

(a) Rex v. Brewster (Hil. Term, 15 Car. 2; Dig. L. L. 76).

(b) Rex v. Harrison (3 Keb. 841; Vent. 324). Harrison was sentenced to pay a fine of 1000l., to find surety for his good behaviour for seven years, and to renounce his error in open court. He brought error in Parliament.

(c) Reg. v. Brown (Trin. Term, 5 Anne; 11 Mod. 86). He was sentenced to the pillory, and to pay a fine of forty marks. (d) 2 Str. 789.

tation of the succession of the Crown of this realm in the present most illustrious family; and to represent the same as illegal and unwarrantable, and to make it be believed that the said late most happy Revolution and the settlement of the Crown of this realm as now by law established had been attended with fatal and pernicious consequences to the subjects of this realm. He was found guilty, and sentenced to the pillory, a fine of 500l., and imprisonment in the King's Bench for two years. (a)

Dr. John Shebbeare was convicted in 1758 of printing and publishing a certain false, wicked, scandalous, seditious, and malicious libel, entitled "A Sixth Letter to the People of England on the Progress of national Ruin, in which it is shown that the present Grandeur of France and the Calamaties of this Nation are owing to the Influence of Hanover on the Councils of England;" tending to traduce the Revolution, and to represent it as the foundation of all those imaginary evils and calamities which the defendant would falsely insinuate the subjects of this kingdom did labour under; and also to asperse the memory of King William III. and of King George I.; and to represent the public measures which were taken and pursued during the course of their respective reigns as wicked, corrupt, and fatal measures to this kingdom; and also to asperse, scandalise, and vilify the late King and his administration of the government of this kingdom; and to make it thought that the public affairs of this kingdom were in a most unhappy and declining state; and that the subjects of this kingdom were unnecessarily and most intolerably loaded and oppressed with taxes, debts, and subsidies; and also to insinuate that the late King had no concern for the people of England, nor any regard for the interest, honour, or welfare of this kingdom, but that the treasure and riches of this kingdom were misapplied, wasted, and dissipated in support of the Electorate of Hanover and his German dominions. (b)

Thomas Paine was convicted in 1792 upon an information charging him with being the author and publisher of a seditious libel, the tendency of which was "to traduce and vilify the late happy Revolution, the settlement of the Crown and regal Government as by law established, and also the Bill of Rights, the Legislature, Government, laws, and Parliament of this kingdom." (c)

(a) Mich. Term, 27 Geo. 2, Dig. L. L. 68.

(b) Rex v. Shebbeare (Hil. Term, 31 Geo. 2, K. B. MSS.). The defendant was fined 51., sentenced to the pillory, and to be imprisoned three years. (c) Rex v. Paine (32 Geo. 3, K. B. MSS.) The defendant, not

appearing to receive the judgment of the court, was outlawed.

PART IV. CHAPTER IV.

PART IV.

John Cuthell, a bookseller, was found guilty in 1799, of CHAPTER IV. publishing a seditious libel written by the Rev. G. Wakefield; but, on filing an affidavit that he had no knowledge whatever of the contents or nature of the book, he was discharged on payment of a fine of thirty marks. (a)

CHAPTER V.

OTHER LIBELS NOT OF A PRIVATE CHARACTER.

Libels of a quasi BESIDES the libels of a public character which have public character. hitherto engaged our attention, and which the State in its corporate capacity punishes, there are others of a quasipublic character which present themselves for consideration next in order before we enter on the discussion of libels on private individuals.

Contempts of
Houses of
Parliament.

House of Lords.

I. LIBELS ON HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Of libels of this kind one class forms a division of the general head of offences called contempts. Libels on either House of Parliament have frequently been treated as breaches of privilege, and punished as such by the immediate action of the House itself. Oftentimes they have been dealt with by prosecutions in the courts of common law, directed by the House which has been libelled either in its collective character or in the person of one of its members.

The general principle relating to contempts of this kind has been thus stated: "Whatever grossly reflects on the character of a member of either House, or whatever imputes to him what it would be a libel to impute to an ordinary person, is a contempt, and thereby breach of privilege; it is a direct assault upon his character, and through the odium presumed to be excited thereby, a consequential obstruction of his political duties."(b)

The House of Lords formerly inflicted fine, imprisonment, and the pillory for offences of this kind against its members; but in more recent times commitment, with or without fine, has been the ordinary punishment inflicted by both Houses of Parliament. (c)

(a) Rex v. Cuthell (27 Howell's St. Tr. 642).
(b) Holt's Law of Libel, p. 118.

(c) 22 Lords' J. 351, 367, 380. "This summary proceeding is usually defended by a technical analogy to what are called attachments for contempt, by which every court of record is entitled to punish by

Punishments of the latter description were inflicted by the House of Lords in 1663 for a libel on Lord Gerard of Brandon; in 1688 for printing a paper reflecting on Lord Grey of Wark; (a) and in 1779 for a libel on the Bishop of Llandaff. (b) In 1722 persons were attached for printing libels concerning Lord Strafford (c) and Lord Kinnoul; (d) and in 1776 for sending an insulting letter to the Earl of Coventry, the offender in the last case being afterwards reprimanded and ordered "to be continued in custody until he find security for his good behaviour.(e) For examples of the punishment of pillory, see the cases of Thos. Morley in 1623, for a libel on the Lord Keeper, (f) and William Carr in 1667, for dispersing scandalous and seditious printed papers against Lord Gerard of Brandon.(g)

În 1834, a leading article having appeared in the Morning Post reflecting upon the conduct of the Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham) with reference to a case which had come before the House of Lords on appeal, the House resolved that the paragraph was a gross breach of their privileges, and committed the editor to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod.(h)

PART IV.

CHAPTER V.

In the case of Arthur Hall in 1581, himself a member of House of Parliament, the House of Commons inflicted the threefold Commons penalty of imprisonment, fine, and expulsion for a printed libel, "not only reproaching some particular good Members of the House, but also very much slanderous and derogatory to its general authority, power, and state, and prejudicial to the validity of its proceedings in making and establishing of laws." (i) imprisonment, if not also by fine, any obstruction to its acts or contumacious resistance of them. But it tended alsó to raise the dignity of Parliament in the eyes of the people, at times when the Government, and even the courts of justice, were not greatly inclined to regard it, and has been also a necessary safeguard against the insolence of power. The majority are bound to respect, and indeed have respected, the rights of every member, however obnoxious to them, on questions of privilege. Even in the case most likely to occur in the present age, that of libels, which by no unreasonable stretch come under the head of obstructions, it would be unjust that a patriotic legislator, exposed to calumny for his zeal in the public cause, should be necessarily driven to a troublesome and uncertain process at law, when the offence so manifestly affects the real interests of Parliament and the nation. The application of this principle must, of course, require a discreet temper, which was not perhaps always observed in former times, especially in the reign of William III.": (Hallam, Const. Hist., chap. 16.)

(a) 14 Lords' J. 144.

(c) 22 Lords' J. 129

(f) 3 Lords' J. 276.

(b) 42 Lords J. 129.
(d) Id. 149. (e) 39 Lords' J. 314, 331.
(g) 12 Lords' J. 174.

(h) 66 Lords' J. 704, 737, 743, 764.

(i) D'Ewes, 291; Hatsell, 93; 1 Com. J. 125, 126.

"This," says

Hallam (Const. Hist., chap. 5), "is the leading precedent, as far as

PART IV.

CHAPTER V.

In 1805, Peter Stuart was committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms for a breach of privilege in printing and publishing in the Daily Advertiser, Oracle, and True Briton, certain libellous reflections on the character and conduct of the House. (a) In 1810, Sir F. Burdett, a member of the House, was sent to the Tower for publishing "a libellous and scandalous paper reflecting upon the just rights and privileges of the House."(b) In 1819 the House resolved that a certain pamphlet, of which Mr. Hobhouse acknowledged himself to be the author, was "a scandalous libel containing matter calculated to inflame the people into acts of violence against the Legislature, and against this House in particular," and that it was "an high contempt of the privileges and of the constitutional authority of this House;" and the writer of the pamphlet was committed to Newgate.(c)

In 1680 two persons, named Yarrington and Groome, were committed for a libel against a member. (d) In 1689, one Smelt was committed for spreading a false and scandalous report of a member, (e) and John Rye in 1696 for having caused a libel reflecting on a member to be printed and delivered at the door.(f) The House committed one Woodfall in 1774 for publishing a letter reflecting on the character of the Speaker, (g) and, in 1821, the author of a paragraph in the John Bull newspaper containing a libel on one of the members. (h) In 1832 two solicitors were called to the bar of the House for a libel contained in a printed handbill, being a copy of an official letter signed by them and addressed to a committee sitting on the Sunderland Wet Docks Bill, reflecting on the conduct of certain members of the committee, and containing a statement of the manner in which the members had voted in the committee. The writers having expressed regret for their offence, the House resolved that the letter contained libellous matter reflecting on the committee, and that the two solicitors had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House; and that they should be

records show, for the power of expulsion, which the Commons have ever retained without dispute of those who would most curtail their privileges." This is the first instance of a libel punished by the House: (Per Lord Ellenborough, C.J., 14 East. 142).

(a) 60 Com. J. 214, 216.

(b) 65 Com. J. 252.

(c) 75 Com. J. 57. See also the case of O'Connell, who was reprimanded in his place by the Speaker for certain defamatory expressions contained in a speech delivered at a public meeting (93 Com. J. 307, 312, 316). (d) 9 Com. J. 654, 656. (e) 10 Com. J. 244.

(f) 11 Com. J. 656.

(g) 34 Com. J. 456.

(h) 76 Com. J. 335.