o,\> 
LIBEL. 
Ugns, pictures, Sec. tending either to blacken the memory 
of one who is dead, or the reputation of one who is alive ; 
and thereby expolinghim to public hatred, contempt, and 
ridicule, i Hawk. P. C. c. 73. § i. 5 Co. 121, 5. 
Libels, fays Blackftone, taken in their largeft and mod 
extenfive fenle, fignify any writings, piXures, or the like, 
of an immoral or illegal tendency. Conlidered particularly 
as offences againfl: the public peace, they are malicious de¬ 
famations of any perfon, and efpeciaily a magiftrate, made 
public by either printing, writing, iigns, or piXures, in 
order to provoke him to wrath, or expofe him to public 
hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The direX tendency of 
tliefe libels is the breach of the public peace, by liirring 
up the objects of them to revenge, and perhaps to blood- 
lhed. -4 Comm. c. 11. 3 Comm. c. 8. 
A libel is the greateft degree of fcandal, and does not 
die like words which may be forgot, an action for which 
is confined to the perfon ; but the caufe of action for 
fcandal in a libel furvives. 5 Rep. 125. This fpecies of 
defamation therefore is ufually termed written fcandal ; and 
thereby receives an'aggravation, in that it is prefumed to 
have been entered upon with coolnefs and deliberation ; and 
to continuelonger and propagate widerand fartherthan any 
other fcandal. 5 Rep. 125. Whatever renders a man ridi¬ 
culous, or lowers him in the efteem and opinion of the 
world, amounts to a libel; though the fame expreflions, if 
fpoken, would not have been defamation. An aXion for 
» libel alfo differs from an action for words in this parti¬ 
cular; that the former may be brought at any time within 
fix years, and any damages will entitle the plaintiff to full 
cofts ; while the latter ought to be brought within two 
years, and the damages recovered mult be 4.0s. to carry 
colts. To print of any perfon that he is a fwindler, is a 
libel, and aXionable. 1 Term Rep. 74S. 
Libels againfl magiftrates deferve the greateft punilh- 
ment. If a libel be made againfl: a private man, it may 
excite the perfon libelled, or his friends, to revenge, and 
break the peace; but, if againfl: a magiftrate, it is not only 
a breach of the peace, but a fcandal to government, and 
flirs up fedition. 5 Rep. 121. 
Where a writing inveighs againfl mankind in general, 
or againfl a particular order of men, this is no libel; it 
mu ft defeend to particulars and individuals to make it a 
libel. But a general reflection on the government is a li¬ 
bel, though no particular perfon is reflected on ; and the writ¬ 
ing againfl a known law is held to be criminal. Accord¬ 
ing to Holt, C. J. fcandalous matter is not neceflary to 
make a libel ; it is enough if the defendant induces an ill 
opinion to be had of the plaintiff, &c. But, if a man 
fpeak fcandalous words, unlefs they are put in writ¬ 
ing he is not guilty of a libel; for the nature of a libel 
■confifteth in putting the infamous matter into writing- 
A defamatory writing, exprefling only one or two letters 
of a man’s name, if it be in fuch a manner, that, from what 
goes before and follows after, it mult be underftood, by 
the natural conftruXion of the whole, to fignify and point 
at fuch a particular perfon, is as properly a libel as if the 
■whole name was expreffed at large. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 73. § 
5. On application for an information for this offence, 
fome friend to the party complaining ftiould in fuch cafe 
flate by affidavit the having read thelibel, and that he un- 
derftands and believes it to mean the party. And in the 
cafe of aXions for libels by figns or pidtures, it feems ne- 
eelfary always to fhow, by proper inuendoes and averments 
of the defendant’s meaning, the import and application of 
the fcandal, and that fome fpecial damage has followed ; 
otherwile it cannot appear that fuch libel by pidture was 
underftood to be levelled at the plaintiff, or that it was 
attended with any adtionable confequences. 3 Comm. c. 8. 
p. 612. 
Though a private perfon or magiftrate be dead at the 
time of making the libel, yet it is punifhable; as it tends 
to a breach of the peace. 5 Co. 125- 1 Ha.wk. P. C. c. 73. § 1. 
A private libel for a private matter, as a letter fcanda- 
lizing a perfon courting a woman, is indictable, and pu- 
uifhable by fine. 
VOL. XU. No. 853. 
Printing or writing may be libellous, though the fcau- 
dal is not diredtly charged, but obliquely and ironically ; 
and where a writing, pretending to recommend to one 
the charaXers of feveral great men for his imitation, in-' 
Head of taking notice of what they are generally famous 
for, pitches on fuch qualities only which their enemies 
charge them with the Want of; as bypropofing fuch a one 
to be imitated for his learning, who is known to be a 
good foldier, but an illiterate man, &c. this will amount 
to a libel. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 73. § 4. 
The petition of the feven bifhops in the reign of kirm- 
James II. againfl the king’s declaration, fetting forth, that, 
it was founded on adifpenfing power, which had been de¬ 
clared illegal in parliament, See. was called a feditious libel 
againfl the king; and they vvere-committed to the Tower; 
but, being after tried at the bar, were acquitted. 3 Mod. 
Z12. The printing of a petition to a committee of parlia¬ 
ment, (which would be a libel againfl the party complained 
of, were it made for any-other purpofe,) and delivering 
copies thereof to the members of the committee, is not the 
publication of a libel, being juftified by the order and 
courfeof proceedings in parliament. 1 Hawk. P. C.c. 73.$ g. 
Scandalous matter in legal proceedings by bill, petition, 
&c. in a court of juftice, amounts not to"a libel', if the 
court hath jurifdiXion of the caufe. Dyer, 285. 4 Rep. 14. 
But he who delivers a paper full of reflexions on any per¬ 
fon, in nature of a petition to a committee, to any other 
perfons except the members of parliament who have to do 
with it, may be punifhed as the publifher of a libel. 1 
Hawk. c. 73. § 8. And, by the better opinion, a perfon 
c.annot juftify the printing any papers which import a crime 
in another, to inftruX counfel, &c. but it will be a libel. 
Sid. 414. 
The communication of a libel to any one perfon is a 
publication in the eye of the-law; and therefore the fending 
an abufive private letter to a man is as much a libel as jf 
it were openly printed ; for it equally tends to a- breach 
of the peace. 1 Hawk. P.C. c. 73. § 11. 4 Comm. c. n. 
It is immaterial, on a criminal projection, with reflect to 
the eflence of a libel, whether the matter of it be true or 
fa He ; becaufe it equally tends to a breach of the peace ; 
and the provocation, not thefalfity, is the thing to be pu- 
niftied criminally ; though doubtlefs the falfehood of it 
may aggravate its guilt, and enhance its punifliment. See 
7 Term Rep.4, that it is not neceflary to allege the falfity 
of the libellous matter. Sir Richard Phillips, in his Pow¬ 
ers and Duties of Juries, ch. x. prefents fome very fenfi- 
ble and ufeful coniiderations for jurymen, on the trial of 
libel caufes. His principle with regard to public libels 
is, “ that, as the propagation of truth on fubjeXs of public 
intereft is a common right, fo whatever is true in re¬ 
gard to public things, or the public conduct of public 
perfons, as fuch, can be no libel; and herein, if a juf- 
tification of the faX is made out, ittiught to procure an 
acquittal.” This principle is, as we have fliown, more 
agreeable to found common fenfe than to ftriX law, which 
will not allow the truth, of a libel to be any defence of its 
author. Yet, whatever fubtle reafons may be found in 
the technical ftruXure of the law for this rule, the confu-. 
fion of falfehood and truth never can be reconciled to or¬ 
dinary ideas of juftice; and a common underftanding ne¬ 
ver can be thoroughly convinced of the propofltion, that 
the falfe calumniator of the bait minifter commits only the 
fame degree of offence with the man who attacks the vices 
of the word. We conceive the drift of the author’s ar¬ 
gument to be, that, though falfehood is not neceflary to be 
proved in order to convict a perfon of a libel, it is ad¬ 
mitted that malice is ; and therefore that a jury may con- 
feientioufiy weigh the truth or falfehood of the faXs‘ 
alledged, as material towards forming a judgment of the 
malicious intent. Though the law doej not ftriXly belong 
to the province of the jury, yet, as their undoubted power 
to return a general verdict of guilty or not guilty does in ef¬ 
fect place the law as well as the faX in their hands, they* 
are exhorted to exert that power by an acquittal, if they' 
are convinced that nothing but truth has been advanced 
