V 
574 L I B E L. 
in the publication into which they are charged to inquire. 
And, indeed, although the truth of a libel is no legal jultifi- 
cation in a criminal profecution, yet in many inltances it is 
confulered as an extenuation of the offence; arid the court 
of king’s bench has laid down this general rule; viz. that 
it will not grant an information for a libel, vmlef's the pro- 
fecntor who applies for it makes an affidavit, aflerting di- 
redily and pointedly that he is innocent of the charge im¬ 
puted to him. But this rule may be difpenfed with, if the 
perfon libelled relides abroad ; or if the imputations of a li¬ 
bel are general and indefinite; or if it is a chaj'ge againft 
the profecutor for language which he has held in parlia¬ 
ment. Dougl. 2.71-371. (284-3S8.) 
In a civil aclion, however, a libel muff appear to be falfe 
as well as fcandalous; for, if the charge be true, the plain¬ 
tiff' has received no private injury, and has no ground to 
demand a compenfation for hiinfelf, whatever offence it 
may be again!! the public peace; and therefore, upon a ci¬ 
vil adtion, the truth of the accuiation may be pleaded in 
bar of the f'uit. 
The punifhment of libellers, for either making, re¬ 
peating, printing, or publifhing, a libel, is fine, and fuch 
corporal punifhment (as imprifonment, pillory, &c.) as 
the court in its diicretion lhall infli< 5 ir; regarding the quan¬ 
tity of the offence, and the quality of the offender. 1 Hawk. 
P. C. c. 73. 
If a printer piint a libel againft a private perfon, he 
may be indidted and punifhed for it ; and fo may he 
who prints a libel againft a magiftrate5 and much more 
one who does it againft the king and ftate ; and it is no 
textufe for the printing or publifhing a libel, to fay that 
lie did it in the way of trade, or to maintain his family. 
uSt.Tr.foz, 986. Alfo if bookfellers. See. publifh or 
fell libels, though they know not the contents of them, 
they are punifhable. It has. been refolved, that, where 
pgrfons write, print, or fell, any pamphlet, fcandalizing 
the public, or any private perfons, fuch libellous books 
may be feized, and the perforts punifhed by law; and all 
perfons expofing any books to fale, reflet!ing on the go¬ 
vernment, may be punifhed; alfo writers of falfe news are 
indictable. zSt.Tr. 477. See Scandalum magnatum. 
It has been frequently determined, that in the trial of 
an indictment for a libel the only queftions for the confi- 
deration of the jury are the fa ft of publifhing, and the 
truth of the inuendoes; that is, the truth of the meaning 
and fenle of the paftages of the libel, as ftated and averred 
in the record ; whether the matter be or be not a libel is 
a queftion of law for the confideration of the court. 3 Term 
Rep. 428. But fee the flat. 32 Geo. III. c. 60 ; that th# 
jury may give a general verdict on the whole matter put 
in ift'ue, and fhall not be required or directed by the court 
Or judge to find the defendant guilty merely on the proof 
of the publication of the paper, and the fen.fe aferibed to 
it in the indictment. See this more fully diicufied under 
the article Jury, vol. xi. p. 547. 
In the cafe of Peltier, for a libel againft Bonaparte, then 
firftconful of the French republic, lord Ellenborough, in his 
charge to the jury, laid, “ I lay it down as law, that any 
publication which tends to degrade, revile,'and defame, 
perfons in confiderable fituations of power and dignity in 
foreign countries, may be taken to be and treated as a libel, 
aiui particularly where it has a tendency to interrupt the 
amity anil peace between the two countries. If any pub¬ 
lication contains a plain and ntanifeft incitement and per- 
fuafipn, addrelfed to others, to affaflinate and deltroy the 
perfons of fuch magiftrates, as the tendency of fuch a pub¬ 
lication is to interrupt the harmony fubliftmg between two 
countries, the libel affumes a ftill more criminal com¬ 
plexion.” In K.B. Feb. ai, 1803. 
Upon this doctrine, vve have the following very fpirited 
remarks in the Monthly Magazine: “ The monftxous and 
inconfiftent doctrines which have been lately maintained 
in cafes of libel have given a juft and ferious alarm to the 
real friends of the Britifli conltitution ; and, if the affer- 
tions of' lawyers are not counteracted by the exertions of 
juries, they will extend to faeh an excefs as to be fatal to- 
the liberty of the prefs, which was fo juftly a fubjeft of 
eulogium with our prelent worthy and coniiitutional tni- 
nilter. Mr. Fox’s bill has re-invefted juries with a great and' 
coniiitutional power; but this power does not feem to have 
been hitherto felt, and much lefs adted upon, by juries as 
it ought to have been, and as might have been expedted 
from the fpiritof Englifhmen. The cafe of Johnfon, who- 
was convicted merely for an act of his fhopman, the fup- 
plying a cultomer with Mr. Wakefield’s pamphlet, not 
publifhed by himfelf, in his, Johnfon’s, abfence, and while 
he w’as perfedtly unconfcious of the tranfaction,, was, to- 
fay the leaftof it, a hard cafe. The verdict, I apprehend, 
fhould be founded on the words of the indictment. Now 
the words of the indidtment are, ‘that he, the faid A. B. 
being a wicked and feditious perfon, did, with a wicked' 
and malicious intention, fell or publifh, &c. &c.’ Now 
how could Johnfon fell or- publifh with a wicked and ma¬ 
licious intention what he did not fell or publifh at all? and 
does not the oath of a juryman confine him to give a true 
verdict, according to the matter alleged in the indict¬ 
ment? But even this is a matter of fimall confequence 
compared with the new, and I apprehend unfounded and 
unconftitutional, doctrine, firft introduced in the cafe of 
lord George Gordon, and fince proceeded upon in the cafe 
of the proprietor of the Courier, and of Peltier:—that of 
the right oiforeign powers to inftitute criminal procefl’es in 
our courts tor libel. If tliofe whom we have been accul- 
tomed to regard as the oracles of Britifh law are deferving. 
of credit, I do not hefitate to pronounce fuch a dodtrine., 
in the language of the celebrated Irifh Refolutions, ‘un¬ 
conftitutional, illegal, and a grievance;’ deftrudtive of the 
truth of hiftory, and dangerous in corrupting the chan¬ 
nels of public information, which, even for .the fecuritjr 
of the government itfelf, fhould be left as open as poffibie. 
“A libel is a crime, according to Blackftone, only as 
‘a breach of the public peace, by ftirring up the objects of 
it to revenge, and perhaps to bloodIhed.’ In this point 
of view, a criticifm or a cenfure on a foreign government 
cannot poffibly be a breach of the peace in this country,, 
fince the objedt of it is out of reach. The remedy, in this- 
cafe, is in the hands of the foreign potentate himfelf, by 
prohibiting the circulation, of fuch libels in his own do¬ 
minions. Only couple this dodtrine with another, which 
has alfo been lately introduced in our courts, viz. ‘that 
a libel may affect the dead as well as the living,’ and then 
it will be ground for an information, to arraign the cru¬ 
elty, tyranny, and ambition, of Louis XIV Carry the 
dodtrine a little further,and fuppofe the pope might have 
inftituted a profecution for libel in an Englifh court of 
juftice;—where would our reformed religion now have 
been? But this, thanks to the wifdom and fpirit of our 
anceftors, was not the dodtrine of thofo limes, which efta- 
bliflied the Englifli church, and the Englifh conftitutiom 
A well-known and rather trite anecdote will ferve to con¬ 
vince us of what was the dodtrine of thofe times ; V/hen 
lord Molefworth publifhed his celebrated Account of 
Denmark, many paftages were found extremely offenfive 
to the reigning monarch, who, by his ambaffador, com¬ 
plained of the infult, and demanded from our William 
I'll, the head of the author. ‘Tell his Danilh majefty,’ laid, 
king William, ‘that I cannot by my own authority dif- 
pofe of the heads of my fubjedts; nor can I grant to his ma¬ 
jefty any red refs, except that I can communicate to lord 
Molefworth the nature of this application, who will, I 
dare lay, infert it in the next edition of his book’.” 
When a perfon is brought before the court to receive 
judgment for a libel, his condudt fubfequent to his con¬ 
viction may be taken into confideration, either by way of 
aggravation or mitigation of his punifhment. 3 Ter© 
Rep. 432. 
Judge Blackftone obferves, that, where blafphemous, 
immoral, trealonable, and fchifmatical, feditious, or fcan¬ 
dalous, libels, are puniihed by the Englifli law, fome witli 
a greater and others with a lets degree pf feverity, the li- 
t berty 
