date

1818 June 18 Parl. Reform Bill
1818 June 18

Parl. Reform Bill

Abregé

VIII Penal Securities

5

Included in the task of proposing /furnishing/ /providing/ a definition of

defamation as applied to this purpose would be that of providing a definition of

defamation at large defamation considered as applied to any purpose: that is /and in

so doing/ of giving a solution to what seems to be the most difficult problem

afforded /that is to be found/ in the whole field of legislation.

{According to some men, the solution is not only difficult but impossible: in other

words to distinguish by any pre-appointed description in this case him who is /the/

criminal from him who is innoxious, the guilty from the not guilty is plainly

impossible. Supposing this to be the case, the practical consequence seems to be –

punish neither.}

Punish no man till you yourself know what it is you punish him for: punish no man as

for one offence till by the description you have given of the offence, you have put

it in every man’s power to avoid your punishment. Such are the rules which seem to be

/present themselves as being/ prescribed by common honesty and common sense: {but}

widely different from both is common law.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1818 June 18 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 June 18

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Abregé

    VIII Penal Securities

    4

    Opposite in one point of view /in its own nature/, but alike capable of being in its

    ulterior effects productive of the evil in question, viz. Miselection is the false

    and deceptious magnification: to /on a particular score specified or individualized:

    viz. when to the person in question is ascribed some individual act which if done by

    him would have been meritorious but where to either was wholly […?] or was an act in

    which he had no part. To/ the individual thus unduly characterized /of whose

    character the false description is given/, no injury, it is true, is done: but to the

    public in the first place, and in the next place to the more worthy rival the injury

    done in this case is exactly as great, as in the case of defamation. If when criminal

    consciousness has place, the one ought to be punished, neither ought /should/ the

    other, where the falshood has for its effect or intent[?] /design/ the production of

    public evil in this shape, go unpunished.

    On this occasion as on others carefully distinguished from defamation ought vituperation to be: by defamation misconduct either in an

    individual shape or at any rate in a specific shape as designated by the name of such

    crime or crimes[?] or some action by which the agent is rendered an object of general

    contempt or hatred, is imputed. By vituperation no such particular imputation is

    conveyed. A sentiment of […?] or disapprobation being expressed, but without any

    specific ground for it, whatsoever evil, if any may be the result is scarcely more

    apt to attach upon the individual by whom it is uttered /levelled/. Opposite to

    ungrounded vituperation is ungrounded eulogy or laudation. Of each the force and tendency may be /is capable

    of being/ counteracted by the other: they do not, either of them on this occasion any

    more than on any other appear to present a demand for penal visitation. Be it what it

    may, punishment where needless is much worse than useless.
  • Title: [1818 June 18 Parl. Reform Bill]
    Description: 1818 June 18

    Parl. Reform Bill

    Abregé

    VIII Penal Securities

    8

    1. Black Book. 2. Procedure.

    To the general harshness of the systems still in force in regard to punishment the

    generally improved state of the public mind as well in respect of social affections

    as in respect of intellectual culture admitts on this occasion the proposition of one

    of a somewhat new description in the character of a substitute to some of those at

    present or of late in use. This is inscription in the black book: with or without

    ulterior publication.

    {The punishments for which it is intended as a substitute are 1. the pillory,

    abolished by a late Law, in Great Britain and Ireland, but not yet so universally in

    the Continent of Europe: 2. the Carcase[?] a /another/ mode of punishment not yet out

    of use on the continent a moveable sort of pillory which the delinquent carries about

    with him as he goes.}

    In every Polling Office is kept a Book appropriated to this purpose. In the case of

    certain Election Offences, entry is made of the name of the delinquent in this book.

    Supposing the offence accompanied with criminal consciousness In conjunction of /with

    this/ his name is entered the general name /denomination/ of the offence: viz. /for

    example/ forgery, deceptious personation, perjury &c with a description more

    or less particular of the occasion and the manner in which on the individual

    occasion, the offence was committed: publication more or less diffused, by means of

    the National Government Newspaper called the London Gazette, with or without the

    addition of the Newspaper or Newspapers.
  • Title: [16 April 1804 Evidence Forthcomingness]
    Description: 16 April 1804

    Evidence

    Forthcomingness

    Ch.4. Misprision

    §.2. Rules

    Rule 9. In the list of offences, the non-delation of which is made penal, no offence ought to be [...?] of the number of those, the mischievousness of which is constituted solely or principally by their publicity. Examples.

    1. Irregularities of the venereal appetite.

    2. Defamation unless /except/ it be where by writing or otherwise the imputation is already public - diffused through the body of the community, and nothing remains to be known but the personal description of the author or criminally-conscious propagator. N.B. In this case however, the obligation of giving information should not be extended to any individual case, until in that individual judgment pronouncing the criminality of the imputation had been pronounced and publicised for this purpose. Why? 1. because in no system of established law is any tolerably precise definition of the offence of defamation to be found. 2. Because, supposing such definition established, it would in many instances be matter of great doubt whether the individual imputation in question the supposed libel (in the case where the defamatory discourse is in writing) comes within the definition so laid down.