Page:Nil Durpan.djvu/186

 remarks he had to make upon the first count. He might add that the sum of one thousand rupees mentioned as the bribe was in itself so utterly absurd, that no one could attach the meaning to it which the prosecution did; but the entire wording was very obscure and doubtful. With respect to the count in the indictment he would submit this broad objection:—The count was preferred by the planters of Lower Bengal, and he contended that they could not, as a body, collectively prefer an indictment; and he was prepared to cite several authorities in support of that view. He objected to the generality of the presentment, and held that they (Indigo planters) were not enabled, as a body, to institute an action for libel. He was nevertheless prepared to admit that some particular classes might, but that Indigo  planters  did  not, constitute  such a class.

The Chief Justice:—Do you mean to imply from your argument that the Queen has not the power of prosecuting any libel committed against any particular section or class of her  subjects?

Mr. Eglinton admitted that such a right undoubtedly existed, but he was prepared to show that the Indigo planters did not come within the meaning of a corporate body. He cited in support  the case of The King V. Osborn 2 vol, Barnardiston, P. 166. In that case a particular section of the community was mentioned. But in the present case the Indigo planters had no corporate connection which would enable them to come in as a body. A material difference existed between the two cases. That was an old case, and it was questionable whether their Lordships would be inclined to receive it as an absolute authority. There had been only four or five authorities which bore directly on this point for many years, that is to say, bodies of individuals coming in and preferring indictments for libel. Some difference of opinion existed as to the way in which the case of The King V. Osborn was reported in "Swanston's Cases" but the general principle was the same. Again, in the King V. Williams reported in "Baker's Abridgement," the principle was clearly laid down. In that case the parties were described to the Jury as unknown, and he apprehended that, in this case, the Indigo planters, as a body, were equally unknown; for what really constituted an Indigo planter? It might be any man who cultivated a square inch of ground and sowed it with indigo, No number was mentioned, and he alleged there was nothing to show what or