upon newspapers was the Stamp Act of 10 Anne, c. 19, in 1711, which, to the dismay of authors, for the first time imposed a duty.1 The duty was increased in 1820, and so continued till 1855, when it was abolished.2 The epoch of the French Revolution caused further restrictions. In 1798 before any person could publish a newspaper he was bound to deliver an affidavit at the Stamp Office, setting forth the true proprietors, or at least two proprietors besides the printers, and their places of abode. But that statute was repealed by another Act of 1836, or rather it was then re-enacted with alterations; and this last Act in turn was repealed in 1870, and now nothing remains of any such requirement.3 Another requirement of 1819 was, that a recognizance of 300%, with sureties should be entered into by publishers of newspapers. The object of this recognizance was to provide a fund for securing payment of fines that might be imposed on convictions for libel. And in 1830 the amount was raised to 4007. in order to provide for the damages that might be found by juries in actions for libel.5 These enactments were, however, also altogether repealed in 1869.8.

Freedom to publish newspapers, and how far they are capable of suppression.-All the restrictions on the publishing of newspapers caused by stamp duties, advertisement duties, and affidavits, and recognizances being thus swept away, the occupation of newspaper proprietor, with his mode of investing capital, is as free as other occupations, and there are few peculiarities left except by way of facilitating the discovery of proprietorship when that 1879. The first in America, The Boston Newsletter, in 1704. The first in Germany in 1715. It was said, that in the year of the Armada, when the excitement of the people was intense, Queen Elizabeth caused to be printed the first Gazette that ever appeared in England. -Sir J. Macintosh, R. v Peltier, 28 St. Tr. 529. But this has been said to be a forgery. It is said that the influence of newspapers on politics began to be felt noticeably in 1738.—Danvers, M.P., 10 Parl. Hist. 448.

1 Addison, Spect. No. 445. An advertisement duty was also imposed in 1711, and repealed in 1853. The paper duty which was common to all publications was repealed in 1861.-137 Hans. Deb. (3) 1110.

2 18 & 19 Vic. c. 27.

3 38 Geo. III. c. 78; 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 76; 33 & 34 Vic. c. 99. 4 60 Geo. III. c. 9. 5 11 Geo. IV, & 1 Will. IV. C. 73. 6 32 & 33 Vic. c. 24.

is needful. There is no court or functionary which has any power whatever to suppress, with or without reason, any newspaper, the publishers of which are liable for libels to the same extent as the publishers of other books, but not to a greater extent; and the punishment does not directly affect the continuance of the periodical. Newspapers may entail punishment on their proprietors and publishers on each occasion of offence, but cannot on any pretext be suppressed.1

In continuance of the legislation of 1798, in order to facilitate the remedy against proprietors of newspapers for libellous matter, any person, in order to bring or carry on an action on that ground, may proceed for a discovery of the name of any one concerned as printer, publisher, or proprietor, or of any matters relative to the printing and publishing; and the defendant is bound to make the discovery required before he can make any defence.2 But this discovery is not to be used in any proceeding except in that particular action. And the discovery may be enforced against the publisher, in order to ascertain the name of a proprietor, whom the plaintiff wishes to sue in preference to the other.3

Postage facilities for newspapers.-Facilities for circulating newspapers through the post-office are allowed on registration by the proprietor or publisher at the General Post-Office, according to a form there required. For the purpose of this Act a newspaper is defined to be a publication consisting wholly or in great part of political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics, published weekly or oftener, and printed on sheets unstitched, and bearing the full title and date

1 In one case the Queen's Bench made a rule absolute, forbidding the publication, in future, of a certain newspaper by any person whomsoever; but that precedent, which belongs to the time of Scroggs, C. J., seemed never to be followed, and that judge was afterwards impeached, partly on this account.-R. v Carr, 7 St. Tr. 1111; 8 St. Tr. 198. It seems quite enough to punish by imprisonment or fine newspaper publishers when they offend; but to suppress the newspaper is an interference with the liberty of trade, and is in no way essential to protect any court or Government, and it never even punishes the real offender. And the immortal secret of Junius shows how difficult it is even to trace the real author. 2 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 76, § 19.

400.

4 33 & 34 Vic, c. 79.

3 Dixon & Enoch, L. R. 13 Eq.

of publication. And to prevent circulation of indecent and obscene prints, books, engravings, or post-cards, power is given to the Postmaster General, with consent of the Treasury, to make regulations to prevent such papers being sent by post.2

Advertisements to recover stolen property-One peculiarity remains as to the contents of a newspaper. Whoever publicly advertises a reward for the return of stolen or lost property, and uses words purporting that no questions will be asked or no inquiry made after the person producing such property, and whoever prints or publishes such advertisement, shall forfeit 50l. to whoever sues for the same.3 Yet the action for these penalties cannot be brought without the written assent of the Attorney or Solicitor General being first obtained. And the action must be commenced within six months after the forfeiture is incurred.4

Security of Post-Office letters.---The right of free speech and writing can scarcely exist in perfection without mechanical facilities for exchanging letters between correspondents; but whether this function is best performed by private enterprise or by the State can be of little importance except so far as safety, regularity, and economy are concerned. What is desired by each and every citizen is, that he shall be entitled to send and receive all communications which he thinks material to his own interest, and that no third party shall be allowed to tamper or interfere with this operation-so that a message sent in writing shall be secret and inviolable from the moment it is despatched till the moment it is delivered. This has for two centuries been more or less attained. The great medium for this communication between the subjects began in 1635, on a small scale, at the suggestion of the Crown, but Parliament soon saw its importance, and in 1649 passed a resolution, that the office of postmaster ought to be in the sole disposal of Parliament. În 1710 a statute laid down the chief rules, and one of these, continuing as it did the first sketch of plan projected under Charles I.,

1 33 & 34 Vic. c. 79, § 6. A supplement of a newspaper is also defined. Ibid. In case of dispute the Postmaster-General, subject to an appeal to the Treasury, shall conclusively decide what is a newspaper.-Ibid. § 14. 2 33 & 34 Vic. c. 79, § 20. 4 33 & 34 Vic. c. 65, § 3.

3 24 & 25 Vic. c. 96, § 102.

forbade all other persons to carry and deliver letters for hire.1 The machinery by which this great institution has been maintained involves the same details as all other businesses, and its main importance is now as regards the security of private communications. Severe punishments attend all the servants of the Post-Office for stealing or tampering with letters. Even to delay or detain wilfully a post letter is in them a misdemeanour. And every other person to whom a post letter has been delivered even by mistake, and who wilfully secretes or detains it, also commits a misdemeanour.3

Post letters may be opened by Secretary of State.— But though the servants of the Post-Office and third parties are punishable for opening or tampering with letters while in the custody of the Post-Office, an exception has always been maintained. This exception is, that any letter may be opened, detained, or delayed in obedience to an express warrant in writing under the hand of a Secretary of State.* From the first the Government had exercised its discretion in this matter, and retained in its hands the power of opening any private letter at any time. And it appears to have been a century ago the common complaint of leading statesmen, that their political opponents made a practice of opening their letters when they had the power. And however arbitrary this may seem, still on full investigation it has been deemed safer to leave an uncontrouled discretion, as in many other instances is done, confided to a functionary not likely to abuse it, rather than abandon what on some great emergency may prove a slight assistance in thwarting seditious or illegal machinations.

6

19 Anne, c. 10, § 17. 27 Will. IV. & 1 Vic. c. 36, § 25. 3 1 Vic. c. 36, § 31. 4 Ibid. § 25. 53 May's Const. Hist. 45.

6 In 1822 complaint was made by a member of Parliament, that a letter sent to him by a prisoner had been opened. And though the Government claimed the right to do so for precaution, yet many urged that it should be deemed a breach of privilege; this step however was not taken.-6 Parl. Deb. (2d) 282, 646. Again, in 1844, instances of private letters being opened were complained of, and Parliamentary committees investigated the practice, and found sufficient confirmation of the suspicion, that such a practice was not unfrequent, especially in connexion with foreign refugees.-75 Par!. Deb. (3) 1264; 76 lbid. 212, 296. SIR R. PEEL said, that no rule could be laid down on such a subject, and successive Secretaries of State of all parties had been in the habit of exercising this power at discretion.—Rep. of Secret Com. 1845.

CHAPTER IV.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRESS AND SPEECH AS REGARDS BLASPHEMY AND IMMORALITY.

Blasphemous words and publications.-One of the restrictions on the freedom of speech and writing is, as already stated, that the writing shall not be blasphemous, or rather those who speak and write must take care not to transgress the limit which the law calls by that name. Some confusion of thought has been displayed in assigning the precise ground on which the law enforces this restriction, which perhaps is not to be wondered at, seeing that in every country and age there have been laws of some kind, and these more or less severe, against the offence which now corresponds to blasphemy.' In its earlier stages, since the Christian era, it was always difficult to distinguish it from heresy and schism, though now the two last are mere ecclesiastical offences peculiar to the clergy, while blasphemy has long been taken out of the charge of the Church and cared for by the general law. At first the common law courts professed that it was not competent for them to entertain an indictment or information for blasphemy. And in a case in 1617, when a man was

1 The ancient Jews treated blasphemy as a capital offence, the punishment for which was stoning.-Lev. xxiv. 16; v. 15; Exod. xxii. 28; Acts, vi. 14. And the Greeks and Romans were equally severe in their views, but as these more strictly belong to the subject of heresy and so part of the law relating to the Church, or what corresponded to the standard Church of the time being, that division of the law will more properly be resorted to for the treatment of this subject. See post. The Romans thought it impious to undertake a battle in opposition to the sacred birds.-Suet. Nero, c. 2.