Hilary 12 Ann.-A Writ of Attachment was granted against Edward Hendale, for speaking disrespectful words of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and his Warrant.

Trinity Term 5 George I.-A Writ of Attachment against Jones, for treating the Process of the Court of King's Bench contemptuously; and there being an intimation that he relied on the assistance of his fellow-workmen to rescue him, the Court sent for the Sheriff of Middlesex into Court, and ordered him to take a sufficient force-1 Strauge 185.

Michaelmas Term 6 Geo. I.-A Writ of Attachment was granted to Richard Lamb, for contemptuous words concerning a Warrant from a Judge of the Court of King's Bench.

-Wil

Easter Term 6 Geo. I.—— kins having couf ssed himself guilty of publishing a Libel upon the Court of King's Bench, the Court made a rule committing him to the Marshal.

The next Term Wilkin having made an affadavit charging Dr. Colebatch with being the author of the Libel, was sentenced to pay a fine of £. 5. and to give security for his good behaviour for a year.

Hilary Term 7 Geo. I.-An Attachment was granted against John Barber, Esquire, for contemptuous Words of the Court of King's Bench, in a speech to the Common Council of London.-1 Strange 443.

Hilary Term, 9 Geo. I.-Doctor Colebatch having been examined upon interrogatories, for contempt in publishing a Libel, the interrogatories and answer were referred to the King's Coroner and Attorney, and

In Easter Term 9 Geo. I.-Dr. Colebatch, being in the custody of the Marshal, was brought into Court, and was sentenced to pay a fine of £. 50. and to give security for his good behaviour for a year, and was committed to the Marshal in execution.

Michaelmas Term 9 Geo. I-A Writ of Attachment was granted against John Bolton, Clerk, for contemptuous words respecting the Wariants of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, at a meeting of his parishioners in the Church, yard.

Easter Term 9 Geo. I.-John Wyat, a bookseller in St. Paul's Church-yard, published a pamphlet written by Dr. Conyers Middleton, in the dedication of which to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, were some passages reflecting upon a proceed

ing of the Court of King's Bench; the Court granted a Rule against Wyat to shew cause why a Writ of Attachment should not issue against him for his contempt; and Wyat having made an affidavit that Cornelius Crownfield had employed him to sell the pamphlet, and he having charged Dr. Conyers Middleton with being the author of it, Crownfield was discharged upon payment of the costs, and a Writ of Attachment was granted against Dr. Conyers Middleton, who, in the next term, gave bail to answer the contempt; he was afterwards examined upon interrogatories, and upon the report of the King's Coroner and Attorney he was adjudged to be in contempt, and was coinmitted to the Marshal in execution quousque, &c. and it was referred to the Master to tax the Prosecutor's costs.

It is stated in Fortescue's Reports, that Dr. Middleton was sentenced to pay a fine of £. 50, and to give security for a year; but no rule for such sentence has at present been found; and Dr. Colebatch having received such a sentence, for a similar offence, in the preceding term, it is possible that this sen ence may, by mistake, have been applied to Dr. Middleton.

Michaelmas Term 5 Geo. II.The Court granted a Writ of Attachment against lady Lawley, for a contempt in publishing a paper reflecting upon the proceedings of the Court; and she having been examined upon interrogatories, was in Easter Term following reported by the Officer of the Court to be in contempt, and was committed to the marshal.

And in Trinity Term 6 Geo. II. she was brought into Court, and a Rule made, stating that "fecit submissionem suam petivit veniam de curiâ;" and thereupon she was fined five marks and discharged.

Mark Halpenn, the husband of lady Lawley, was also examined upon interrogatories, for publishing the same libel.— 2 Barnardiston, K's B. 43.

Extract from Atkyns's Reports, Book 2,

page 469.

First Seal after Michaelmas Term, December 3d, 1742.-A motion against the printer of The Champion, and the printer of The Saint James's Evening Post; that the former, who is already in the Fleet, may be committed close prisoner, and that the other, who is at large, may be committed to the Fleet, for publishing a libel against Mr. Hail and Mr. Garden (executors of John Roach, Esquire, late Major of

the garrison of Fort Saint George in the East Indies,) and for reflecting likewise upon Governor Mackay, Governor Pitt, and others, taxing them with turning affidavit-men, &c. in the Cause now depending in this Court; and insisting that the publishing such a paper is a high contempt of this Court, for which they ought to be committed.

Lord Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor, Nothing is more incumbent upon Courts of Justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented; nor is there any thing of more pernicious consequence, than to prejudice the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes, before the cause is finally heard. It has always been my opinion, as well as the opinion of those who have sat here before me, that such a proceeding ought to be discountenanced.

But to be sure Mr. Solicitor-General has put it upon the right footing, that notwithstanding this should be a libel, yet unless it is a contempt of the Court, I have no cognizance of it; for whether it is a libel against the public, or private persons, the only method is to proceed at

law.

The Defendant's Counsel have endeavoured two things-1st. to shew this paper does not contain defamatory matter; 2dly, if it does, yet there is no abuse upon the proceedings of this Court: And therefore there is no room for me to interpose.

Now take the whole together, though the letter is artfully penned, there can remain no doubt in every common reader at a coffee-house but this is a defamatory libel. It is plain therefore who is meant; and as a Jury, if this fact was before them, could make no doubt, so, as I am a Judge of facts as well as law, I can make none.

I might mention several strong cases, where even feigned names have been construed a libel upon those persons who were really meant to be libelled.

Upon the whole as to the libellous part, if so far there should remain any doubt whether the executors are meant, it is clear beyond all contradiction upon the last paragraph, in which are these words: "This case ought to be a warning to all fathers to take care with whom they trust their children and their fortunes, lest their own characters, their widows and their children be aspersed, and their fortunes squandered away in law-suits."

* Vide Baker v. Hart, post. 488. Mrs. Farley's Case, 2 Ves. 520.

And likewise, though not in so strong a degree, the words " turned Affidavit-men," is a libel against those gentlemen who

have made them.

There are three different sorts of Contempt:

One kind of Contempt is, scandalizing the Court itself.

There may be likewise a Contempt of this Court, in abusing parties who are concerned in causes here.

There may also be a Contempt of this Court, in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.

There cannot be any thing of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safely both to themselves and their characters.

The case of Raikes, the Printer of the Gloucester Journal, who published a libel in one of the Journals against the Cominissioners of Charitable Uses, at Burford, cailing his advertisement, A Hue and Cry after a Commission of Charitable Uses, was of the same kind as this, and the Court in that case committed him.

There are several other cases of this kind: one strong instance, where there was nothing reflecting upon the Court, in the case of Captain Perry, who printed his brief before the cause came on; the offence did not consist in the printing, for any man may give a printed brief as well as a written one to Counsel; but the Contempt of this Court was, prejudicing the world with regard to the merits of the cause before it was heard.

Upon the whole, there is no doubt but this is a Contempt of the Court.

With regard to Mrs. Read, the Publisher of Saint James's Evening Post, by way of alleviation, it is said, that she did not know the nature of the paper; and that printing papers and pamphlets is a trade, and what she gets her livelihood by,

But though it is true this is a trade, yet they must take care to do it with prudence and caution; for if they print any thing that is libellous, it is no excuse to say that the printer had no knowledge of the contents, and was entirely ignorant of its being libellous, and so is the rule of Law, and I will always adhere to the strict rules of Law in these cases.

Therefore Mrs. Read must be committed to the Fleet, according to the common order of the Court upon Contempts.

But as to Mr. Huggonson, who is already a prisoner in the Fleet, I do not think this

Let the Committee, and his wife and the Printer to whom I have last alluded, be committed to the Fleet Prison. Dismiss the Committee from that office; and direct a reference to the Master, as to the appointment of another Committee. Extracts from Sir Eardley Wilmot's Opinions and Judgments; p. 253. Hilary Term, 5 Geo. III-1753.

The KING against ALMON. [This opinion was not delivered in Court, the Prosecution having been dropped, in consequence, it is supposed, of the resignation of the then Attorney General; | but after the death of this eminent and very learned Chief Justice, was found in his own hand-writing among his papers by his son, who published it in Memoirs of his Life, page 243. The occasion of it was a Motion in the Court of King's Bench, for an attachment against Mr. Almon, for a Contempt in publishing a Libel upon the Court, and upon the Chief Justice.]

"It has been argued that the mode of proceeding by Attachment is an invasion upon the ancient simplicity of the Law; that it took its rise from the Statute of Westminster, ch. 2.; and Gilbert's History of the Practice of the Court of Common Pleas, p. 20. inthe first edition, is cited to prove that position. And it is said, that act only applies to persons, resisting process; and though this mode of proceeding is very proper to remove obstructions to the execution of process, or to any contumelious treatment of it, or to any contempt to the authority of the Court, yet that papers reflecting merely upon the qualities of Judges themselves, are not the proper objects of an attachment; that Judges have proper remedies

to recover a satisfaction for such reflections, by actions of "Scandalum Magnatum;" and that in the case of a Peer, the House of Lords may be applied to for a breach of Privilege; That such Libellers may be brought to punishment by indictment or information; that there are but few instances of this sort upon Libels on Courts or Judges; that the Common Pleas lately refused to do it; that Libels of this kind have been prosecuted by Actions and Indictment, and that Attachments ought not to be extended to Libels of this nature, because Judges would be determining in their own cause; and

As to the origin of Attachments, I think they did not take their rise from the Statute of Westminster, ch. 2.; the passage out of Gilbert does not prove it; but he only says, the origin of comderived from this Statute;' but read mitments for contempt, seems' to be the paragraph through; the end contradicts the seming' mentioned in the beginning of it; and shews, that it was a part of the Law of the Land to commit for contempt, confirmed by this Statute. And indeed when that Act of Parliament is read, it is impossible to draw the commencement of such a proceeding out of it. It empowers the Sheriff to imprison persons resisting process, but has no more to do with giving Courts of Justice a power to vindicate their own dignity, than any other chapter in that Act of Parliament.

"The power which the Courts of Westminster Hall have of vindicating their own authority, is coeval with their first foundation and institution; it is a necessary incident to every Court of Justice, whether of Record or not, to fine and imprison for a contempt to the Court, acted in the face of it, 1 Vent. 1. and the issuing of Attachments by the supreme Courts of Justice in Westminster Hall, for contempts out of Court, stands upon the same immemorial usage as supports the whole fabric of the Common Law; it is as much the "Lex Terræ," and within the exception of Magna Charta, as the issuing any other legal process whatever.

"I have examined very carefully to see if I could find out any vestiges or traces of its introduction, but can find none; it is as ancient as any other part of the Common Law; there is no priority or posteriority to be discovered about it, and therefore it cannot be said to invade the Common Law, but to act in alliance and friendly conjunction with every other provision which the wisdom of our ancestors has established for the general good of society. And though I do not mean to compare and contrast Attachments with Trials by Jury, yet truth compels me to say, that the mode of proceeding by Attachment stands upon the very same foundation and basis as Trials by Jury do, immemorial usage and practice; it is a constitutional remedy in particular cases: and the Judges in those cases are as much bound to give an activity to this