Odger's English Common Law

SEDITIOUS WORDS. 157
order the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directed .to a person who at the
date of the order is out of the jurisdiction. 1
(iii. ) Solemnising or assisting or being present at a marriage which is
contrary to the Royal Marriages Act, 1772. 2
Seditious Words,
Words which are merely spoken cannot, as we have seen, 3
amount to treason, or treason-felony ; hut they often induce
sedition. It is a misdemeanour to speak or to write and
puhlish any words which tend to bring into hatred or con-
tempt the Sovereign or his ministers, or the Government
and Constitution of the realm, or either House of Parliament,
or the Courts of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects
to attempt the alteration of any matter in Church or State,
otherwise than by lawful means. This misdemeanour cannot
be tried at Quarter Sessions. The defendant will not be
allowed to urge as a defence that the words are true
Lord Campbell's Act does not apply to seditious words. 5
;
4 for
Thus it is sedition to speak, as well as to write and publish, of the
Sovereign any words which deny his title to the Crown, or call his legitimacy
in question, or impute that he is insane, 6 or corrupt, or immoral in his
private life, or perjured 7—any words, in short, which would be libellous
and actionable per se, if printed and published of any other public
character ; for such words must tend to create disaffection and disorder.
But to assert that the King is misled by his ministers, or is wrong in his
policy, is no crime.
Again, a publication is not a seditious libel unless it affects the government
of this country. Hence, if the words complained of, though
published in this country, do not tend to disturb the peace and tranquillity
of the United Kingdom, but only of some foreign country, they are not
a seditious libel, and are not punishable here as such 8 (although they may
possibly be indictable here as a personal libel upon the individual
Sovereign attacked 9 ).
But where there is no intention to foment disaffection
among the people, to obstruct the administration of the law,
or to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the realm, the
i R. v. Pinckney, [1904] 2 K. B. 84.
2 12 Geo. III. o. 11, s. 3.
3 Ante, p. 148.
< Ex parte William, O'Brien ("1883), 12 L. E. Ir. 29.
6 6 & 7 Vict. o. 96, s. 6.
» R. v. Harvey and Chapman (1823), 2 B. & C. 257.
7 St. John's Case (1616), Noy, 105.
e R. v. Antonelli (1906), 70 J. P. 4.
See R. v. Peltier (1803), 28 St. Tr. 617 ; R. v. Most (1881), 7