titled The North Briton," " was a sufficient description of the offence, since it was known specifically by that name.

In the case of Butt v. Conant (p), the authority of a justice of the peace to issue his warrant against the publisher of a libel, and to commit, in default of sureties, was much discussed, and, after a consideration of all the previous precedents, it was decided that justices of the peace have such authority, as well in the case of libel as of all other offences, over which, as justices, they have jurisdiction.

In the above case, the libel reflected on the characters of two noblemen, the late Lord Ellenborough, C. J. and Lord Castlereagh. But it seems to be clear that the general doctrine there laid down would apply to all cases of libels, whether they were illegal, as reflecting on the charac ters of individuals, or for any other mischievous tendency, affecting the public (g).

(p) 1 B. and B. 548.

(q) The publishers and distributors of impious and seditious libels may be immediately taken up and held to bail. It is not necessary 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 magistrates might not arrest the torch in the incendiary's hand, and before it had set fire to the building. Per Leycester, J. in his charge to the jury, Carnarvon Summer Ass. 1819.

In Leach's case (7) the warrant from the secretary of state was couched in the following terims: "These are, in his Majesty's name, to authorize and require you (the messengers), taking a constable to your assistance, to make a strict and diligent search for the authors, printers, and publishers of a seditious and treasonable paper, entitled The North Briton,' No. 45, and them, or any of them, having found, to apprehend and seize, together with their papers, and bring in safe custody before me, to be examined concerning the premises, and further dealt with according to law." The messengers, under this warrant, seized Mr. Leach and imprisoned him for some time; but on its being found that he was neither author, printer, nor publisher, he was discharged by the Earl of Egremont's order, without even having appeared before him. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants carried the matter, by a bill of exceptions, to the court of King's Bench, when the single point decided was, that the defendants could not justify, inasmuch as they had not acted in obedience to the warrant (s).

(r) 11 St. Tr. 307.

(s) By a resolution of the House of Commons it was declared, that general warrants in the case of libel are illegal. Journ. Comm. 22 Ap. 1766. And such were, by a subsequent resolution, declared to be illegal in all cases. 25 Ap. 1766.

Ib.

It is enacted by the 43 G. 3. c. 58. s. 1.—“ That whenever any person is charged with any offence for which he may be prosecuted by indictment or information in the King's Bench (not being treason or felony), and the same shall be made to appear to any judge of the same by affidavit or by certificate of the indictment or information being filed against such person in the said court for such offence, such judge may issue his warrant under his hand and seal, and thereby cause such person to be apprehended and brought before him or some other judge of the same court, or before some one justice of the peace, in order to his being bound, with two sureties, as the said warrant shall express, with condition to appear in the said court at the time mentioned in the said warrant, and to answer all and singular indictments or informations for any such offence; and if he shall neglect or refuse to become so bound, such judge or justice may respectively commit him to the common gaol of the county, city, or place, where the offence shall have been committed, or where he shall have been apprehended, there to remain untill he shall become bound as aforesaid, or be discharged by order of the said court, in term time, or by one of the judges of the said court, in vacation; and the recognizance to be thereupon taken shall be returned and filed in the

said court, and shall continue in force until such person shall have been acquitted of such offence, or in case of conviction, shall have received judgment for the same, unless sooner declared by the said court to be discharged." And the same act further provides, "That in case any defendant be committed, either by virtue of such warrant, or by virtue of any writ of capias ad respondendum, for want of bail, a copy of the indictment or information shall be delivered to him or to his gaoler, with notice that unless he shall within eight days enter an appearance, plea, or demurrer, to such indictment or information, an appearance and the plea of not guilty will be entered in his name; and that if such defendant shall neglect for eight days to enter an appearance, and to plead or demur, the prosecutor may, on affidavit of the service of the copy and notice, enter an appearance and the plea of not guilty, and proceed in the usual course: and that, upon acquittal, the judge before whom the trial is had (though not a judge of the King's Bench) may order such defendant to be discharged out of custody as to his aforesaid commitment."

With respect to the seizure of papers, it is said to have been resolved, by all the judges, that where persons write, print, or sell any pamphlet, scandalizing the public or private persons, such

books may be seized, and the person punished by law (t).

The practice of issuing a general warrant to seize the papers of a suspected person, appears to have been frequently resorted to, in former times, with great abuse, of which the case of Lord Coke himself furnishes an instance; whose papers were seized and carried to the secretary's office, with some valuable securities, which were never returned to him (u). Insignificant how

ever is a loss of such a nature when compared with the more serious evils incident to such a procedure, the grievous invasion of domestic peace and security, and the facility with which a person might be made responsible for the contents of writings never in his possession, or deprived of those necessary for the purpose of his defence.

A warrant (x) was issued in the name of the Duke of Newcastle, one of the secretaries of state, directed to two of the King's messengers, requiring them, taking a constable, to make a diligent search in the house of Dr. Earbury, the author of a treasonable paper, entitled "The Royal Oak Journal," for all papers of whatsoever

(t) 4 Read. St. Law. 154.

(u) Dig. L. L. 33.

(x) 2 Barnard, K. B. 346. Dig. L. L. 33.