on the ground that veritas convicii excusat.  I am clear that although this Beetle actually were an Egyptian Louse, it would accord no relevant defence, provided the calling it so were a convicium; and there my doubt lies.

“With regard to the second point, I am satisfied that the Scaraboeus or Beetle itself has no persona standi in judicio; and therefore the pursuer cannot insist in the name of the Scaraboeus, or for his behoof.  If the action lie at all, it must be at the instance of the pursuer himself, as the verus dominus of the Scaraboeus, for being calumniated through the convicium directed primarily against the animal standing in that relation to him.  Now, abstracting from the qualification of an actual dominium, which is not alleged, I have great doubts whether a mere convicium is necessarily transmitted from one object to another, through the relation of a dominium subsisting between them; and if not necessarily transmissible, we must see the principle of its actual transmission here; and that has not yet been pointed out.

“LORD HERMAND.—­We heard a little ago, my Lord, that there is a difficulty in this case; but I have not been fortunate enough, for my part, to find out where the difficulty lies.  Will any man presume to tell me that a Beetle is not a Beetle, and that a Louse is not a Louse?  I never saw the petitioner’s Beetle, and what’s more I don’t care whether I ever see it or not; but I suppose it’s like other Beetles, and that’s enough for me.

“But, my Lord, I know the other reptile well.  I have seen them, I have felt them, my Lord, ever since I was a child in my mother’s arms; and my mind tells me that nothing but the deepest and blackest malice rankling in the human breast could have suggested this comparison, or led any man to form a thought so injurious and insulting.  But, my Lord, there’s more here than all that—­a great deal more.  One could have thought the defender would have gratified his spite to the full by comparing the Beetle to a common Louse—­an animal sufficiently vile and abominable for the purpose of defamation—­[Shut that door there]—­but he adds the epithet Egyptian, and I know well what he means by that epithet.  He means, my Lord, a Louse that has been fattened on the head of a Gipsy or Tinker, undisturbed by the comb or nail, and unmolested in the enjoyment of its native filth.  He means a Louse grown to its full size, ten times larger and ten times more abominable than those with which your Lordships and I are familiar.  The petitioner asks redress for the injury so atrocious and so aggravated; and, as far as my voice goes, he shall not ask it in vain.

“LORD CRAIG.—­I am of the opinion last delivered.  It appears to me to be slanderous and calumnious to compare a Diamond Beetle to the filthy and mischievous animal libelled.