which was, that the terms of the order constituted a high contempt of the administration of justice. On granting the information, Ashhurst, J. observed, "The assertion that he was actuated by motives of public justice, carries with it an imputation on the public justice of the country; for if these were his only motives, then the verdict must be wrong." And Buller, Justice, " Nothing can be of greater importance 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 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 may be. mistaken: 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 the present, by publications in print, or by any other 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." An information had been filed by the Attorneygeneral against White and others, for an abusive comment on the conduct of a Judge and Jury, by whom a person had lately been tried for murder, and acquitted. Upon the trial of the defendants for the libel, Mr. Justice Grose informed the jury, that in case they were of opinion that the publication * Sittings after Easter Term, 48 Geo. 3d. had been made, not with a view to elucidate the truth, but to injure the characters of individuals, and to bring into hatred and contempt the administration of justice in the country, they ought to find the defendants* guilty. The same policy which prohibits seditious comments on the King's conduct and government, extends, on the same grounds, to similar reflections on the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament. These bodies, so essential a part of the constitution, are at all events entitled to reverence and respect on account of the great and important public services which they are bound to discharge. They have exercised, from very early times, those means of repressing immediate insults and contempts of their authority, which are essential at least to their dignity, if not to their very existence; nevertheless, they have been sparing in the exercise of their extensive and apparently undefined powers, and have, in many instances, waived their privileges, and delivered over offenders to be dealt with by the Common Law. It seems to have been the policy of the courts to encourage such a proceeding; and it is no less the duty of juries to pay a ready attention when proof of such insults is submitted to them. It will be sufficient to glance slightly upon the consequence likely to arise from a contrary conduct; the compelling those important assemblies to redress their own affronts-a measure necessarily irksome to them, since they are obliged to unite characters *The Jury found them guilty, and they were sentenced to three years im prisonment. which the general policy of the law has, except in these and other cases of necessity, kept asunder, and which, if very frequently resorted to, might eventually introduce disagreeable discussions as to the extent of those most important and essential privileges. In the case of the King v. Rayner, the defendant having been convicted of printing a scandalous libel upon the Houses of Lords and Commons, called "Robin's Reign, or Seven's the Main," the court set a fine of 501. upon him-committed him for two years, and until he should pay the fine-and likewise till he should find security for his good behaviour for seven years. William Owent was tried upon an information exhibited against him for publishing a malicious libel, entitled "The Case of the Honourable Alexander Murray, Esq. in an Appeal to the People of Great Britain," &c. tending to scandalize and vilify the whole body of the Commons in Parliament assembled; to represent the proceedings in Parliament as cruel, arbitrary, and oppressive; to make it believed that the Commons in Parliament assembled had acted, in their legislative capacity, in open violation of the Constitution; and also to represent the said House of Commons as a Court of Inquisition, &c. &c. &c. Upon the publication of this alleged libel by the defendant, the Commons addressed the king, de * 2 Barnard. K. B. 293. Dig. L. L. 125. siring his majesty to give orders to prosecute the publisher, which was done.* After the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, a review of the articles of impeachment wa spublished, by John Stockdale. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Fox, one of the managers of the impeachment, the House unanimously voted an address to the King, praying his majesty to direct his Attorney-generalf to file an information against Mr. Stockdale, as the publisher of a libel upon the Commons. The Attorney-general, on opening the case to the Jury, after stating the address of the Commons, proceeded to observe, "I state it as a measure which they have taken, thinking it, in their wisdom, as every one must think it, to be the fittest to bring before a jury of their country an offender against themselves, avoiding thereby, what sometimes indeed is unavoidable, but which they wish to avoid whenever it can be done with propriety, the acting both as judges and accusers, which they must necessarily have done, had they resorted to their own powers, which are great and extensive, for the purpose of vindicating themselves against insult and contempt, but which, in the present instance, they have wisely forborne to exercise, thinking it better to leave the offender to be dealt with by a fair and impartial Jury." *He was tried before Lord C. J. Lee, and acquitted. ↑ Sir Archibald Macdonald, now Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. Ridgway's Speeches of the Hon. T. Erskine. Note. Scandalous reflections upon the grandces of the realm fall within the division of the subject which has been considered in the last chapter; but since the proceeding by writ of Scandalum Magnatum is of a civil as well as of a criminal nature, the extent of the injury has been treated of in a previous chapter, (VI.) to which the reader is referred. CHAPTER XXXIV. Publications against Convenience. NEXT, every publication is intrinsically illegal, which tends to produce any public inconvenience or calamity. Under this division, those rank the first in respect of the magnitude of their results, which tend to interrupt the good understanding which prevails between this country and others, by malicious reflections upon those who are possessed of high rank and influence in foreign states. Since the natural tendency of these is to involve the government in a foreign war, their authors have, in several instances, been punished as offenders at Common Law. Thus, in the case* of the King v. D'Eon, an information was filed against the defendant by the Attorney-general,t for publishing a libel upon the Count De Guerchy, who was at that time residing in this kingdom, in the capacity of Ambassador from the court of France. The information charged the defendant with an intention to defame the character and abilities of the Count De * Easter T. 4 G. 3. 1764. K. B. MSS. Dig. L. L. 88. |