In 1820 an information was filed against Sir Francis Burdett, for writing and publishing a certain scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel of and concerning the government of this realm, and of and concerning the troops of our lord the king, unlawfully and maliciously devising and intending to raise and excite discontent, disaffection, and sedition among the liege subjects of the king, and among the soldiers of our said lord the king, and to move and excite the liege subjects of our said lord the king to hatred and dislike of the government of this realm, and to insinuate and cause it to be believed by the liege subjects of our said lord the king that divers of the liege subjects of our said lord the king had been inhumanly cut down, maimed, and killed by certain troops of our said lord the king at Loughborough, in the county of Leicester, on the 16th of August, 1819; the libel being contained in an address to the electors of Westminster.' Best, J., told the jury that if the address was published with the intention alleged in the information, such intention was to be collected from the paper itself; unless the import of the paper were explained by the mode of publication or any other circumstances, the paper was a libel. The jury found the defendant guilty.

A body of police having dispersed an assembly of people at Birmingham, an indictment for seditious. libel was preferred against the writer and publisher of certain resolutions agreed to by a body called the General Convention, condemning the act of the police as "a wanton, flagrant, and unjust outrage upon the people of Birmingham by a bloodthirsty and unconstitutional force from London, acting under the authority of men who, when out of office, sanc4 B. & Ald. 95.

1

tioned and took part in the meetings of the people, and now, when they share in the public plunder, seek to keep the people in social slavery and political degradation;" asserting that the people of Birmingham were "the best judges of their own right to meet in the 'Bullring' or elsewhere, have their own feelings to consult respecting the outrage given, and are the best judges of their own power and resources to obtain justice;" and that the arrest of a particular individual "affords another convincing proof of the absence of all justice in England, and clearly shows that there is no security for life, liberty, or property, till the people have some control over the laws they are called upon to obey."'

"With respect to the intent of the defendant,” said the learned judge, "a man must be taken to intend the natural consequences of what he has done; and if this paper has a direct tendency to cause unlawful meetings and disturbances, and to lead to a violation of the laws, that is sufficient to bring it within the terms of this indictment, and it is a seditious libel.

"If it be the highest crime known to our laws to attempt to subvert by force the constitution and state, it is certainly a crime, though of inferior magnitude, yet of great enormity, to endeavor to despoil it of its best support the veneration, esteem, and affection of the people. It is, therefore, a maxim of the law of England, flowing by natural consequence and easy deduction from the great principle of selfdefense, to consider as libels and misdemeanors every species of attack by speaking or writing, the object of which is wantonly to defame or indecorously to calumniate that economy, order, and constitution of 'Rex v. Collins; Rex v. Lovett, 9 Car. & P. 456.

things which make up the general system of the law and government of the country.'

"That to accomplish treasonable purposes, and to delude the weak, the unwary, and the ignorant, no means can be more effectual than a seditious press. With such machinery the preachers of sedition can sow widecast those poisonous doctrines, which, if unchecked, culminate in insurrection and rebellion.. Words may be of a seditious character, but they might arise from sudden heat, be heard only by a few, create no lasting impression, and differ in malignity and permanent effect from writings."

Criticism on any part of the constitution, made with a view to bring about improvements in it, are not interdicted; but attacks calculated to promote insurrection, and circulate discontent, to degrade and vilify the constitution, to asperse its justice and anywise impair the exercise of its functions, are termed seditious libels, and punished as such.

The state of the country and of the public mind when the publication takes place are material to be considered in determining whether the libel was published with a seditious intention.

A particular passage in a work may constitute a seditious libel; but although the jury are to form their judgment upon the particular passage charged as such, they may compare it with the whole book, and see how it is qualified by it. So with regard to newspaper articles: the jury are to consider, not isolated passages, but the whole of the articles complained of

Whether a newspaper article is original or not, may, however, be a material consideration in

1 II Cox Crim. Cas. 46.

determining the intention with which it was published.

Williams, a barrister of the Middle Temple, was, in the seventeenth year of James I., indicted, convicted, and executed for high treason, in writing two books, the one called "Balaam's Ass," and the other called "Speculum Regale," in which he predicted that the king would die in the year 1621.'

One Brewster was indicted and convicted in the 15th Chas. II., for printing and publishing a libel called "The Phoenix, or the Solemn League and Covenant," in which it was declared that a king abusing his power to the overthrow of religion, laws, and liberties, may be controlled and opposed; and if he sets himself to overthrow all these by arms, then they who have the power, as the estates of the land, may and ought to resist by arms.

2

In the 29th Chas. II. an information was filed against one Harrison, charging that he, maliciously and traitorously intending to stir up sedition and to create a disturbance between the king and his people, had published, uttered, and proclaimed of and concerning the government and rule of England, and of and concerning the traitors who adjudged King Charles I. to death, that the government of the kingdom consists of three estates, and that if a rebellion should happen in the kingdom, unless that rebellion was against the three estates, it was no rebellion. The court, supposing that the words did tend to set on foot that position upon which the war levied in 1641 by the two Houses against the king, was grounded, were much displeased that the counsel for the defendant would pretend to defend

1 2 Roll. Rep. 88.

* Rex v. Brewster, Dig. L. L. 76.

them, or to put any tolerable sense upon them, and gave judgment for the king.'

In the 5th Anne, Dr. Brown was convicted, on an information, of having published a libel, entitled "Mercurius Politicus," reflecting on the state and constitution, as settled at the Revolution, which he represented as the "destruction of the laws of England.”

2

A treatise on hereditary right, by Bedford, was held to be a libel, though it contained no reflection upon any part of the then government, in the 12th Anne.

An information was filed in 1754 against Richard Nutt, for printing and publishing a certain false, wicked, scandalous, seditious, and malicious libel, entitled "The London Evening Post," tending to represent this kingdom as in a miserable and wretched state and condition, and with a view to traduce the late happy revolution," and to suggest that it was an unjustifiable and unconstitutional proceeding; and also to dispute and call in question the settlement and limitation of the succession of the crown of this realm in the present most illustrious family; and to represent the same as illegal and unwarrantable, and to make it be believed that the said late most happy revolution and the settlement of the crown of this realm as now by law established, had been attended with fatal and pernicious consequences to the subjects of this reaim. He was found guilty, and sentenced to the pillory, a fine of five hundred pounds, and imprisonment in the King's Bench for two years.

Dr. John Shebbeare was convicted in 1758 of

1

1 Rex v. Harrison, 3 Keb. 842; Vent. 324.

2 Rex v. Brown, 11 Mod. 86.