was punished by the cutting out of the tongue, downwards through the career of the Star Chamber, when ruinous fines, perpetual imprisonment, whipping, clipping of the ears, slitting of the nose, branding, and the pillory were sometimes accumulated for one offence upon the same culprit.

These mutilations have, however, long been unknown to our law. By the statute 60 Geo. 3. c. 8. it was enacted, that any person a second time convicted of publishing a blasphemous or seditious libel should, at the discretion of the court, be adjudged either to suffer such punishment as might by law be inflicted in cases of high misdemeanor, or to be banished from the united kingdom and all other parts of his majesty's dominions for such term of years as the court should order.

This statute, however, so far as it related to the sentence of banishment, was repealed by the statute 11 Geo. 4. & 1 W. 4. c. 73. s. 1.

Public libels, therefore, are now punishable as high misdemeanors, by fine or imprisonment, or by both.

The power of imprisonment is without limit. If a defendant were sentenced to forty years imprisonment for a public libel there would be no error on the record. (t)

Defamatory libels are separated into three classes by the recent act, and separate punishments are allotted to each class. The classes thus created are, firstly, defamatory libels; secondly, defamatory libels published with a knowledge that the statements they contain are false; and, thirdly, defamatory libels published or threatened to be published for the purpose of extortion.

(t) Lords Brougham and Campbell's Evidence. Report of Committee, pp. 5 and 178. But see ante, p. 245.

To the first class of libels the statute annexes the penalty of fine, or imprisonment not exceeding a year, or both. To the second the penalty is fine, and imprisonment not exceeding two years. To the third class the punishment is imprisonment in the common gaol or house of correction, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three years.

Of this statute of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 90., the fifth section applies to libels published without any actual knowledge of their falsehood, and enacts, that if any person shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel, every such person, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to fine or imprisonment, or both, as the court may award, such imprisonment not to exceed the term of one year.

The fourth section enacts, that if any person shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel, knowing the same to be false, every such person, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned in the common gaol or house of correction for any term not exceeding two years, and to pay such fine as the court shall award.

And by the third section it is enacted, that if any person shall publish or threaten to publish any libel upon any other person, or shall directly or indirectly threaten to print or publish, or shall directly or indirectly propose to abstain from printing or publishing, or shall directly or indirectly offer to prevent the printing and publishing, of any matter or thing touching any other person, with intent to extort any money or security for money or any valuable thing from such or any other person, or with intent to induce any person to confer or procure for any person any appointment or office of profit or trust, every such offender on being convicted thereof shall be liable to be

imprisoned, with or without hard labour, in the common gaol or house of correction for any term not exceeding three years. This clause has a proviso that nothing therein contained shall in any manner affect any law in force in respect of the sending or delivery of threatening letters or writings.

In some cases the court of Queen's Bench, instead of passing sentence, will refer the matter to the master of the crown office, who awards a sum to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for the damage suffered by the defamation, and the costs of the prosecution. Upon the master's allocatur, either an attachment or execution, upon a rule absolute, ordering defendant to pay the money, will issue. (u)

(u) 1 Gude, 109.

1. Of the Process.......... 291 2. Of the Costs.......

SECT. 1.-Of the Process.

THE publishers and distributers of public libels may be immediately taken up and held to bail. It is not necessary, said Leycester, J., in his charge to the grand jury at Carnarvon in 1819, to stand by and see the mischief spreading without attempting to interrupt its progress; it would be a reproach to the laws of the country if it were so, and if the magistrate might not arrest the torch in the incendiary's hand, and before it had set fire to the building.

A justice of the peace may issue his warrant against the publisher of a libel, whether public or defamatory, as in any other case of misdemeanor contra pacem, and in default of sureties may commit. (a)

The old practice, said to have been warranted by a resolution of all the judges, was, that where persons write, print, or sell any pamphlet, scandalising the public, or private persons, such books may be seized and the persons punished by law. (b)

(a) Butt v. Conant, 1 B. & B.

548

and see Reg. v. Bartlett,

3 D. P. R. 95.

(b) 4 Read. St. Law, 154.

66

66

This practice was, however, declared illegal in the great case of Entick v. Carrington and others (c); Lord Camden, C. J., observing, "This power of the "secretary is not supported by one single citation "from any law book extant; it is claimed by no magistrate in the kingdom but himself. Papers are "the owner's goods and chattels; they are his dearest property, and are so far from enduring a seizure "that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though "the eye cannot by the law of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are removed " and carried away the secret nature of the goods will "be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more "considerable damages in that respect. Where is the "written law that gives any magistrate such a power? "I can safely say there is none; and therefore it is "too much for us, without such authority, to pronounce a practice to be legal which would be sub"versive of all the comforts of society.

66

66

it

"There is no authority to show that libels might "be seized, except the opinion of the twelve judges "at the close of the reign of Charles II., who gave as their opinion, that no one could legally expose "to the public any thing that concerned the affairs of "the public without licence from the king. This was "quoted by C. J. Scroggs, on the trial of Harris for 66 a libel, who extended the doctrine to the seizure "of all books, pamphlets, and writings on matters of "public concern.

"It is urged, as an argument of utility, that such a "search is the means of detecting offenders, by disco"vering evidence. I wish some case had been shown

(c) 19 How. St. Tr. 1029.