"where (u);" or to a justice of the peace in the execution of his office, "You are a rogue and a liar." In all cases of inferior magistrates, however, the words must be spoken to them in the execution of their office. (x) Thus, saying of Sir Rowland Gwyn, a justice of the peace, in his absence, "Sir Rowland is a "fool, an ass, and a coxcomb, for making such a war❝rant, and he knows no more than a stickbill," was held, on demurrer, to be a breach of good manners, but no indictable offence. (y)

As to the superior judges, reflecting words spoken either of or to them are indictable both as scandalum magnatum and at common law. The judges of all courts of record are also armed with the power of committing for contempt.

General spoken abuse of any magistrate, be he present or absent, is "a breach of good manners," and therefore a sufficient ground for binding the offender to his good behaviour. (z) If the abuse be in writing it is indictable.

"Nothing can be of greater importance," said Mr. Justice Buller, "to the welfare of the public, than "to put a stop to the animadversions and censures "which are so frequently made upon courts of justice

66

in this country; they can be of no service, and may "be of the most mischievous consequences. Cases may happen in which the judge and jury are mis"taken; when they are, the law has afforded a remedy, "and the party injured is entitled to pursue every "method which the law allows to correct the mistake; "but when a person has recourse to a writing like

(u) Cro. Eliz. 581. 78; 2 Rol. Ab. 78; 1 Sid. 144; Keb. 508.

153; Str. 420; R. v. Weltje, 2 Camp. 142.

(y) Reg. v. Wrightson, Salk. (z) Idem.

(x) Rex v. Penny, 1 Ray. 698.

"the present, by publication in print, or by any other 66 means, to calumniate the proceedings of a court of "justice, the obvious tendency of it is to weaken the “administration of justice, and, in consequence, to sap "the very foundation of the constitution itself." (a)

The high court of parliament is also protected from defamatory expressions or writings by indictment or information at common law, as well as by its own inherent power of committal for contempt; and the house of commons especially, having no power to fine or to imprison for a time certain, have often had recourse to this remedy. (b)

SECT. 8.-Of Communications tending to excite to

illegal Acts.

UNDER this heading we include seditious libels and speeches.

John Horne having printed certain resolutions passed at a meeting at the King's Arms tavern, Cornhill, proposing a subscription of 100%., "to be applied to the "relief of the widows, orphans, and aged persons of

66

our beloved American fellow subjects, who, faithful "to the character of Englishmen, preferring death "to slavery, were for that reason only inhumanly "murdered by the King's troops at or near Lexington "and Concord on the 19th of last April," the publication was held to be a seditious libel, and he was sentenced for it to one year's imprisonment, a fine of 2007., and to give securities for his good behaviour for three years. (c)

(a) Rex v. Watson & others, 2 T. R. 199. See also Rex v. Smith, Skinn. 124.

(b) Rex v. Rayner, 2 Barnard,

Rex v. Owen, 2

K. B. 293;
Starkie, L. & S. 203.

(c) Cowp. Rep. 672; and 11 St. Tr. 264.

The Queen v. Collins (d) was an indictment for the publication of certain resolutions agreed to by a meeting calling itself a general convention.

In instructing the jury, Littledale, J., said, " If the "object of the publication 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 resolution contains no more than a calm and quiet discussion, allowing something for a little feel"ing 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 on which they felt no interest,) that would be no "libel."

66

66

66

In the case of the Queen v. Lovett (e) the jury were directed, "If the paper has a direct tendency to cause "unlawful meetings, and to lead to violation of the "laws, it is a seditious libel, and every one must be "taken to intend the natural consequence of what he " has done."

Such is the general rule which will be in every case laid down by the presiding judge, and it will be for the jury to determine whether the matter proved to have been spoken or published has or has not this criminal tendency.

Under this head we may also include all libels upon individuals, all of which are indictable when actionable, because they tend to excite the party libelled to a breach of the peace.

Mere words, however, are not considered to tend to acts of personal violence. The courts have held that

(d) 9 C. & P. 460.

(e) 9 C. & P. 462.

the words liar and rogue do not tend to a breach of the peace, and are therefore not indictable. (ƒ)

All challenges to fight, and even attempts to provoke a challenge to fight (g), are misdemeanors punishable by indictment or information, whether conveyed by writing, signs, or words. This, however, is clearly quite distinct from the offence of defamation; quite as distinct as threatening letters, forgeries, or oral threats for purposes of extortion.

Under this class we may also rank libels upon the memory of deceased persons. It is clear that such publications can only be offences at law in so far as they affect the survivors. "But," says Lord Coke, "the

66

reason of punishing offences of this nature is, that "they stir up others of the same family, blood, or "society, to revenge, and to break the peace." (h)

In the King v. Topham (i) Lord Kenyon observed, "To say that the conduct of a dead person can at no "time be canvassed, to hold that even after ages past "the conduct of bad men cannot be contrasted with "that of good, would be to exclude the most useful "part of history." It has been held, therefore, that the intention to injure the family of the deceased, and the tendency to provoke a breach of the peace, must be expressly averred in the indictment. (k)

An information has been granted for saying of a deceased member of parliament, "He could not be "called a friend to his country, for he changed his principles for a red riband, and voted for that per"nicious project, the excise." (1)

SECT. 9.-Of Communications against public Policy. "I LAY it down as law," said Lord Ellenborough, C. J., "that any publication which tends to disgrace, "revile, and defame persons of considerable situations "of power and dignity in foreign countries may be "taken to be and treated as a libel; and particularly " where it has a tendency to interrupt the amity and peace between the two countries."

66

This was an indictment, at the instance of Napoleon Buonaparte, against Jean Peltier. (m)

Any publication tending to ridicule and defame an ambassador residing at our court is a libel under this rule. (n)

Lord George Gordon was fined 500l. and imprisoned for two years for saying of the Queen of France, that she was the leader of a faction. John Vint was found guilty of defaming the Emperor of Russia; and many cases might be added to the same effect; they all, however, fall under the rule as laid down by Lord Ellenborough in Rex v. Peltier.

As to conspiracies to raise the price of funds, or to attain any other object, by means of false news or false rumours, they appear to have no connexion with the law of defamation, nor any quality in common with defamation, except that they are effected through written or spoken communications.

(m) Holt on Libel, 78; 28 Howell's St. Tr. 529.

(n) Rex v. D'Eon, 2 Stark. L. & S. 216.