606 LIBERTY of 
likely to be ofFenfive or injurious to the government; 
■was it to be endured that.fuch a member, meaning only, 
as is proved in the prefent cafe, to correct fuch mifrepre- 
fentation, was not to publifh fuch correction in his own 
defence, without incurring the rifle of fine or a gaol ? It 
was indeed effential to the liberties of all members of par¬ 
liament, to 1 have this vital queftion rightly underftood; to 
have it proclaimed from the highelt authorities in the ftate, 
whether it be the law of the land or the law of parlia¬ 
ment, that any reporter may print, as the fpeech of a 
member of parliament, that.which he did not fpeak, and 
that members of parliament alone are to be interdicted by 
the terrors of line and imprifonment from publifhing what 
they did fay. He faid fuch profecutions as thefe had ne¬ 
ver been carried on before ; that all good parliamentary 
men would have been liable ; that Mr. Burke and Mr. 
Windham, -particularly the former, had publiflied all their 
Speeches ; that Mr. Burke would have been profecuted 
for public libels over and over again, as well as for pri¬ 
vate ones. He inltanced many of Mr. Burke’s attacks 
on individuals, amongft others, one of a tax-gatherer, in 
his fpeech on reform, and which fpeech he publilhed. 
The jury found the defendant guilty ; but we underftand 
the verdict is certain to undergo every kind of revilion 
that the funerior courts, or even parliament itfelf, can give. 
One thing there is which, in the prefent ftate of profe¬ 
cutions for libel, cannot fail to command attention, viz. 
that the minifterial prints abound, to fully as great a de¬ 
gree as their antagonifts, in all the vices which can ad¬ 
here to the mode of cenfuring public men; yet it is a 
rare cafe, indeed, to fee any of them punifhed. And 
what conclufion can the fair, the difinterefted, and intelli¬ 
gent, part of the community form ? What elfe, than that 
the law of libel is a law to punifli all thofe who dare to 
lpeak ill of the minifter ; and that the liberty of the prefs 
is a liberty to fpeak ill of all thofe who are the minifter’s 
enemies ? 
It is fufficiently obvious, that, with regard to political 
Subjects, and public men, the liberty of the prefs may be 
abufed in two ways. The one is, when good public 
meafures, and good public men, are blamed ; the other is, 
when bad public meafures, and bad public men, are 
praifed. Of thefe two, we Snould confider the laft as 
being infinitely the worft. It is not only, beyond all 
comparifon, the raoft prevalent, as being the beft paid, 
and not at all punifhed ; but it is infinitely the molt dan¬ 
gerous and fatal in its operation. It is the fkreen by 
which, more effectually than by any thing elfe, power is 
concealed in that gradual progrefs to defpotifm, which 
the diftinguifhed authors above quoted deferibed as its 
moft dangerous, and almoft its only dangerous, approach. 
Wherever real incapacity in a public man is pointed 
out; wherever the real impolicy or mifehief of a wrong 
meafure is ftript of its difguife, and made to appear in 
its own fliape ; we conceive that the nation is ferved in 
the highelt inltance ; and any thing rather than an abufe 
lias been effedted by the prefs. But we readily grant, 
that wften, by the influence of falfe cenfure, a nation is 
made to difapprove of a good meafure, or a good minif¬ 
ter, and to defeat the one, or deprive itfelf or the other, 
the prefs has been the fource of mifehief. There are, 
.however, two remedies againft this, whofe united virtue 
can feldom fail to be effedtual. There is, in the firft place, 
refutation of the cenfure by the fame channel; a grand 
and appropriate cure, and which, confidering the force of 
truth, will generally prevail. And there is punifhment, 
which, as often as a man brings an accufation which he 
cannot fupport, may be inflicted in meafureand proportion. 
There is, however, another danger, real or imaginary, 
«f which certain clafles of men hold up to their own eyes 
a coloflal and hideous picture; and labour earneftly with 
it to appal the hearts of other men ; tiiat is, the danger 
of anarchy, arifing from exceflive cenfure of meafures of 
government and public men. Now, of thofe countries 
which have enjoyed the incut of the power of cenfure by 
THE PRESS. 
the prefs, and thofe which have enjoyed the leaft; in 
which has there appeared the greateft difpofition to anar¬ 
chy, and in which the leaft? The anfwer which the ex¬ 
perience of hiftory prefents to us, will furprife thofe who 
have creduloufly lent their faith to the men who have 
lately been fo active in traducing the application of cen¬ 
fure by the prefs. The only countries in which any to¬ 
lerable degree of the liberty of the prefs has ever been 
enjoyed, have been a few of the protellant countries of 
modern times; England, Holland, Swifterland, and the 
United States of North America. Now, fo far from fhow- 
ing the greateft tendency to anarchy, of all countries that 
ever exilted, thefe have been the fartheft removed from 
that tendency. In what .country in Europe is there fo 
much tendency to infurredtion, as in Turkey? And 
what other countries of Europe have the molt nearly re- 
fembled Turkey in that particular ? We anfwer—Italy; 
and whatever country has fliared the moil in that defpo- 
tifm which Italy exercifed upon the thoughts and expref- 
fions of the people. 
There is another grievous miftake involved in this pre¬ 
judice with regard to the matter of fail. It was not the 
abufe of a free prefs which was witnefled during the French 
revolution ; it was the abufe of an enflaved prefs. The 
prefs was at all times the exclufive inltrument of the do¬ 
mineering fadtion, who made ufe of it to calumniate 
their enemies and agitate the people ; but prevented, by 
the terrors of extermination, all other men from making 
life of the prefs to expofe their machinations and charac¬ 
ter. It was exadlly that fpecies of abufe which is com¬ 
mitted, in different degrees, by every fet of rulers in 
France, in England, or any where elfe, who allow more 
latitude to freedom of expreflion on their own fide, than 
on that of their opponents. Had real freedom of the prefs 
been enjoyed ; had the lioneft men whom France con¬ 
tained been left a channel by which to lay their fenti- 
ments before the public ; had a means been fecured of 
inftruiding the people in the real nature of the delations 
which were praidifed upon them ; the enormities of the 
revolution would have been confined within a narrow 
compafs, and its termination would have been very dif¬ 
ferent. 
It is the natural effect of a free prefs, fo to harmonize 
together the tone of the government and the fentiments 
of the people, that no jarring oppofition between them 
can ever arife. By the free circulation of opinions, the go- 
vernmentis always fully apprifed, which by no other means 
it ever can be, of the fentiments of the people, and feels a 
decided intereft in conforming to them. As it mult thus, in 
fome degree, mould itfelf upon the fentiments of the 
people, fo it feels an intereft in fafhioning the fentiments 
of the people to a conformity with its views. In a word, 
the government and the people are under a moral neceffi- 
ty of adding together; a free prefs compels them to bend 
to one another; and any contrariety of views and pur- 
pofes liable to arife, can never come to fuch a head as to 
threaten convulfions. We may fafely affirm, that more 
freedom of the prefs granted to our own country, would 
have the falutary effeCd of harmonizing, to a much greater 
degree, the tone of government and the fentiments of the 
people, and of rendering all violent oppofition between 
them ftill more improbable than even at prefent it is. 
That the prefs, too, though calculated to produce im¬ 
portant elfedfts in the How progrefs of ages, is an inftru- 
ment with which no violent and hidden changes can ever 
be effected, we fliould think abundantly evident, upon a 
little confideration of its very nature. This is a circum- 
ftance which did not efcape the fagacity of Mr. Hume, 
and which, though cautious and timid with refpeid to 
government, even to a degree, as Mr. Fox juflly remarks, 
of womanifli imbecility, he hefitated not to exprefs in fe¬ 
vers! of the firft editions of his Effays. The point is fo 
well handled by him, and his authority is fo high, that 
we prefer delivering our fentiments upon it, in his words, 
to our own. “ S.ince, therefore, the liberty of the prefs 
