6-02 
LIBERTY of the PRESS, 
who does not wifii to depart from the dodtrine of the fa¬ 
thers of the church ; and he hopes that this freedom will 
not be leflened on account of his voluntary fubmiflion. 
As to the cenfurijig and deftroying of manufcripts at 
various times under the ancient Greeks and Romans, thefe 
were arbitrary acts of the ruling powers, and not the effect 
of any fixed regulations. See the article Book, vol. iii. 
p. iSo, i. But, foon after the invention of printing, laws 
began to be made for fubjecling books to examination ; 
a regulation propofed even by Plato ; and which has been 
wifhed for by many fince. It is very probable that the 
fear under vvhich the clergy were, left publications fhould 
get abroad prejudicial to religion, and confequently to 
their power, contributed not a little to haften the eftablifh- 
ment of book-cenfors. Thus the art of printing, foon 
after its introduction, was looked upon in England, as 
well as in other countries, as merely a matter of ftate, and 
fubjeet to the coercion of the crown. It was therefore re¬ 
gulated with us by the king’s proclamations, prohibitions, 
charters of privilege and licenfe, and finally by the decrees 
of the court of liar-chamber, which limited the number 
of printers, and of preftes which each fhould employ, and 
prohibited new publications uniefs previoully approved 
by proper licenfers. On the. demolition of this odious 
jurifdiffion in 1641, the long parliament of Charles I. af¬ 
ter their rupture with that prince, aflumed the fame pow¬ 
ers as the ftar-cham’oer had exercifed with refpeft to the 11- 
cenfing of books; and in 1643,1647, 1649, and 1652, iff tied 
their ordinances for that purpofe, founded principally on 
the ftar-chamber decree of 1637. In 1662 was palled the 
ftatute 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 33. which, with fome few al¬ 
terations, was copied from the parliamentary ordinances. 
This aft expired in 1679; but was revived by ftatute 1 
Jac. II. c. 17. and continued till 1692. It was then con¬ 
tinued for two years longer by Itatute 4 W. and M. c. 24. 
but, though frequent attempts were made by the govern¬ 
ment to revive it in the fubfequent parts of that reign, 
(Com. Journ. 11 Feb. 1694, 26 Nov. 1695, 22 Oft. 1696, 
9 Feb. 1697, 31 Jan. 1698,) yet the parliament refilled it 
10 ftrongly, that it finally expired in 1694 
Sir Roger L’Eftrange was the laft licenler of the prefs. 
He wrote a pamphlet, which he dedicated to the king 
(Charles II.) to recommend himfelf to the office of li- 
cenfer, in which he fucceeded. The work is entitled, 
** Considerations and Propofals in order to the Regulation 
of tile Prefs, &c. June 1663.” Confiderable extrafls from 
this fcareeand curious publication are given in the Monthly 
Magazine for June 1811. There is little doubt but Mr. Pitt 
had it before him, when, in the years 1793,4, and 5, he laid 
fo many reftrictions on the liberty of the prefs. It appears, 
that at the time of LTftrange’s publication there were 
not above fixty preftes in London; thefe he propofed to 
reduce to twenty, and to fubjeet them to the following 
(among other) regulations: 
“Firft; The number of printers and preftes being re- 
folved upon, let the number of their journeymen and ap¬ 
prentices be iikewife limited; and, in like manner, the 
number of mafter-founders, and of their journeymen, and 
their apprentices 1 ; all which to be allow’d of and approv’d 
by fuch perfon or perfons as fnail be authoris’d for that 
purpofe; neither let any joyner, carpenter, or fmith, pre- 
Jume to work for or upon any printing-prefs, without 
Fuch allowance as aforefaid, according to the direction of 
the late aft for printing. 
Secondly, Let all fuch printers, letter-founders, joyners, 
carpenters, and fmiths, as (hall hereafter be allow’d, asafore- 
Jaid, be respectively and feverally interrogated before their 
admittance, in order to the difcovery of f’upernumerary 
printers and preftes. 
This may ferve as to the difcovery of private printers 
arid preftes already in employment; now to prevent un¬ 
derhand-dealing for the future, and to provide againft 
certain other abufes in fuch as are allow’d. 
Firft; Let a fpecial care be taken of card-makers, lea¬ 
ther-guilders, flock-workers, and quoyf-drawers 3 either 
by exprefsly inhibiting their ufe of fuch preftes as majf 
be apply’d to printing of books, or by tying them up to 
the fametermes and conditions with printers; and let no 
other tradefman whatfoever prefume to make ule of a 
printing-prefs, but upon the fame conditions, and under 
the fame penalties, with printers. 
2dly. Let no preffe or printing-houfe be erected or lett, 
and let no joyner, carpenter, finith, or letter-founder, 
work for a printing-houfe, without notice. 
3<JIy. Let no materialls belonging to printing, no letters 
ready founded or caft, be imported or bought without the 
like notice, ‘and for whom. 
4thly. Let every matter-printer be bound at leaft, if not 
fworn, not to print, caufe or fuffer to be printed in his 
houfe, or prefs, any book or books without lawful licence. 
5thly. Let no mafter-printer be allow’d to keep a prefs 
but in his own dwelling-honfe; and let no printing-houfe 
be permitted with a back-dore to it. 
6thiy. Let every mafter-printer certifie what vvarehoufes 
he keeps, and not change them without giving notice. 
7thly. Let every mailer-printer fet his name to. whatfo¬ 
ever he prints, or caufes to be printed. 
iathly. Let no journeyman be employ’d, without a cer¬ 
tificate from the mailer where he wrought iaft. 
13thly. Let no mailer difcharge a journeyman, nor he 
leave his mailer, under fourteen dayes notice, unleffe by 
confent.” We have quoted this laft regulation, merely 
becaufe it gave rife to a cuftom which i'ublifts among 
printers to this day; and we do not know that it obtains 
in any other mechanical employment. 
Mr. Juftice Blackllone is of qpinion, however, that the 
liberty of the prefs, fo efiential to the nature of a free 
ftate, confifts not fo much in freedom from cenfure for 
any criminal matter that may be publilhed, as in laying na 
previous rejlrainis upon publications. Every freeman (lays 
he) has undoubtedly a right to lay what fentiments he 
pleafes before the public ; to forbid this, is to deltroy the 
freedom of the prefs; but, if he publilhes what is impro¬ 
per, mifchievous, or illegal, he mull take the confequenc#* 
of his own temerity. See Libel. To fubjeft the prefs to 
the reftriclive power of a licenfer in the manner above- 
mentioned, is to fubjeft all freedom of fentiment to the 
prejudices cf one man, and make him the arbitrary and 
infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, re¬ 
ligion, and government. But to puniih (as the law does 
atprel'ent) anydangerous orolfenfive writings which, when 
publilhed, fliall,'on a fair and impartial trial, be adjudged 
of a pernicious tendency, is neCefl'ary for the prefervation 
of peace and good order, of government and religion, the 
only lolid foundations of civil liberty. Thus the will of 
individuals is Hill left free; the abufe only of that free 
wall is the object of legal punifliment. Neither is any re- 
llraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; li¬ 
berty of private fentiment is ftill left; the difleminating or 
making public of bad lentiments, deftruftive of the endsof 
fociety, is the crime which fociety corrects. A man (fays 
a fine writer on this fubjeft) may be allowed to keep poi- 
Tons in his clofet, but not publicly to vend them as cor¬ 
dials. And to this we may add, that the only plaufible 
argument heretofore ufed for reftraining the juft freedom 
of the prefs, “that it was necefiary to prevent the daily 
abufe of it,” will entirely lofe its force, when it is fliowp. 
(by a feafonable exertion of the laws) that the prefs can¬ 
not be abufed to any bad purpofe without incurring a 
fuitable punifliment; whereas it can never be ufed to any 
good one when under the controul of an infpeftor. So 
true will it be found, that to ce'nfure the iicentioafnefs is 
to maintain the liberty of the prefs. 4 Comm. c. 11. 
The above obfervations deferve the ferious attention of 
every juryman, who willies well to the conftitution and 
happinefs of his country. We fhall next add the remark 
of another celebrated writer on this fubjeft. The danger 
of fuch unbounded liberty, (of unlicenfed printing,) and 
the danger of bounding it, have produced a problem, in 
the .fcience of government, which human underftanding 
feems 
