1799.] 
ENQUIRER, No. XVII. 
Question. What is the conjtituttional 
Jreedam of the prefs in England, and haw 
may it beft he prejerved ? 
Yet philofophic love of eafe 
I fuffer not to prove difeafe, 
But rife up in the virtuous caufe 
OF a free prefs, and equal laws. 
GREEN. 
HE freedom of the prefs, or, more 
comprehenfively, the freedom of pub- 
lication, is a topic which from its high im- 
portance has engaged the tongues and 
pens of Englifhmen, ever fince they have 
been free and enlightened enough to dif- 
cu{s matters of public concern, Though 
at all times interefting, at different periods 
it has proved differently fo ; but perhaps 
there never was a time in which the courfe 
of events has rendered it fo important as 
the prefent. The liberty of writing, by 
fome looked upon with fear and abhor- 
rence, by others regarded as the only 
means of extricating mankind from their 
prefent troubles, and producing fafe and 
Jafting reforms ; abolifhed in fome coun- 
tries, clofely reitrited in others, and fuf- 
picioufly watched in all; now pecvliarly 
claims the fober and intelligent fupport of 
its remaining friends. I fhall therefore 
venture to call the attention of the readers 
of the Monthly Magazine to a few con- 
fiderations on this fubjeét, which, if not 
novel, may however fuggett fome ideas of 
practical utility. | 
I fhall begin with admitting that thofe 
who have affumed, as a principle of free 
government, the unlimited licenfe of pub- 
licly difcuffing all topics, in which the 
welfare of fociety is concn ed, have 
fpoken upon theory merely, and are as 
yet unfupported by experience as to the 
utility, or eventhe practicability of their 
fyftem ; for in no country, ancient or 
modern, as far as my knowledge extends, 
has there exifted fuch an unbounded h- 
berty. At the fame time, the effects of an 
appreach towards this principle have 
been fuch as to give probability to their 
arguments inits favour; forit cannot be 
denied, that in exact proportion to the ex- 
ercife of fuch a liberty, fcience, truth, 
public f{pirit, and all that we deem moft 
valuable among mankind, have fpread 
and flourifhed. Nor am I acquainted 
with an initance in which this indulgence 
has produced any ferious evils in a coun- 
try governed, like ours, ona plan corre- 
fpondent to the wifhes and habits of ama- 
jority of its inhabitants. Exifting au- 
thority, if exerted with any decent regard 
Monruty Maa. No. xLiv. 
Enquirer, No. XVII. 269 
to the general good, will always have not 
only power, but opinion, on its fide; and 
when the appeal is made to the people on 
any poin:, through the medium of the 
prefs, it is fufficiently evident which party 
will moft poffefs the advantage of rewards 
to engage advocates, and of opportunities 
to circulate their pleas. 
But I mean not to dwell longer on the/e 
eneral ideas. My purpofe is to confider 
the treedom of the prefs as exifting in this 
country, and defined by herlaws. Juf— 
tice Black{tone has faid, that in England 
<¢ every freeman has an undoubted right 
to lay what fentiments he pleates berore 
the public.”. ‘This would appear as ex- 
tenfive as the moft zealous advocate for a 
free prefs could defire; but he immedi- 
ately fubjoins, that ‘¢ if he publifhes what 
is improper, mifchievous or illegal, he 
muit take the confequence of his own te- 
merity.”” (Black/?. Comm. book iv. ch. 11.) 
We now feem to have loft all we had be- 
fore gained; for what is a right for the 
exercife of which aman may be punifhed? 
But if there is an apparent inconfiftency 
in the language of thefe two claufes, there 
is none in the meaning. Its purport is, 
that there exifts no law in this country, 
as in many others, againft the meer a&t of 
ublifhing a book without previous per- 
miffion, and that its peculiar nature and 
efiects alone are the objeéts of legal en- 
quiry. It is obvious, however, that a li- 
berty thus circumferibed may be reduced 
to nothing real in exertion; tor if I have 
reafon to believe that what I wifh to pub- 
lith wili in faét fubject me to fevere pu- 
nifhment,. my ‘* temerity’” muft be great 
indeed to induce me to undergo the ha- 
zard. Yet it muft be acknowledged that 
this mode of reftriétion is lefs injurious 
to the caufe of freedom, though more ha- 
zardous to individuals, than the mode of 
fubmitting works to the judgment of a 
cenfor before publication. Thefe cenfors 
being always appointed by the ruling 
powers, it is evident that all difcuffion 
thought dangerous te ettablifhed doétrines 
and inftitutions will be ftrangled in the 
birth. Here, it may have attained its 
objeét before the author or publithers 
fhall have been marked for profecution, 
Moreover, a cenfor would /upprefs many 
fentiments, which a public accufer would 
not choofe to profecute. Of this we have 
fufficient proof in the only inftance of 
licenfing praétifed among us, that for the 
ftage. What trifing objeétions have 
been made in that department againft 
pafflages which would have attraéted no 
notice in a pamphlet or a newfpaper ? 
M in Farther, 
