Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/793

 6l2

THE GREEN BAG

in story, is called insanum parliamentum," and " did oftentimes, in the reign of that King, break out into fearful and bloody wars and rebellions." King Edward I, having found by experience the direful effects of such false rumors, and knowing that the sovereign's position was better se cured by the real love of his subjects than by the dread of rigorous laws, had this statute passed to remedy the invention and prop agation of such rumors, in a mild and tem perate manner, both with respect to the practice and the punishment, "rather leav ing the same to the censure of the common law (which all men willingly obey)"than by inflicting any new devised punishment." Coke adds, that the King's moderation in leaving the punishment to fine and im prisonment was the greater, because "the ancient law of England before the Conquest was much more severe and rigorous." These comments of Lord Coke indicate the reasons for the statute of Edward, and the mode of punishing the offense at com mon law. The statute proceeds on the idea that, by the common law, as well understood at the time, and enforced by the courts, the author or inventor of the false tale was punishable by indictment — as undoubtedly was the propagator of it also — and the statute merely provided a means by which he should be effectually discovered and brought to justice. The enactment of Edward I was sup plemented by the statute of 2 Richard II. stat. i, c. 5 (1378). It recited in effect, that there being "devisors of false news and of horrible and false lies" concerning prelates, nobles and great men of the realm, and also concerning officers of the King's house, justices and other great officers of the realm, with respect to things which by them "were never spoken, done nor thought," to their great slander, and whereby discords might arise between them, or between the lords and the commons, "great peril and mischief might come to all the realm, and quick subversion and destruc

tion" of the said realm, if due remedy be not provided." It thereupon enacted, "that, from henceforth, none be so hardy to devise, speak, or to tell, any false news, lies, or other such false things of prelates, lords, and of others aforesaid, whereof discord or any slander might arise within the same realm; and he that doth the same shall incur and have the pain another time ordained thereof by the statute of Westminster the First (i.e., 3 Edw. I., c. 34) which will, that he be taken and imprisoned till he have found him of whom the word was moved." There was also the statute of 12 Richard II, c. n (1389). which was directed against reporters of lies concerning prelates, nobles, justices and "other great officers of the realm," and made the offenders punishable by the Council. Other statutes for the same pur pose, in aid of the common law, were passed in the reigns of Philip and Mary and Elizabeth.1 The statutes of Edward and Richard, which indicate the ancient origin of the enactment in the Canadian Code, were known as the Scandalum Magnatum Statutes. They gave both a civil and criminal remedy (denied to ordinary subjects) to persons of rank and dignity, peers, judges, or any of the great officers of the Crown, of whom derogatory words were published, even with out proof, in civil cases, of special damage; but they became obsolete long before they were repealed, the ordinary process of action, indictment, or information, affording ample means of redress in every case. They were repealed by a statute passed in the reign of the late Queen.2 A learned commentator, well known in the United States and Canada, referring to these old English statutes and Coke's com ments, remarks that "on principle, and as matter addressing itself to the legislative discretion, if not to the judicial, the political 1 i & 2 Phil. & M., c. 3 (1554-5) and I EHz., c. 6 (1558). 1 The Statute Law Revision Act, 1887, (50-51 Viet., c. 59).