H- 
 
 *.f^,^. 
 
■mm' 
 
 \ 
 
'. ' -»^w~i.«(kSu., 
 
AN ENQUIRY, 
 
 CONCERNING THE LIBERTY, 
 
 AND 
 
 LICENTIOUSNESS OF THE PRESS, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE UNCONTROULABLE NATURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HUMAN MIND: 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AIJ INVESTIGATION OF THE RIGHT WHICH GOVERN^ 
 
 MENT HAVE TO CONTROUL THE FREE EXPRES^ 
 
 SION OF PUBLIC OPINION, 
 
 Addressed to the People of the U. States. 
 
 By JOHN THOMSON, 
 
 <* / toillsooher part with Lift itself, than with that Liberty) without 
 which) Life is not worth the having; — / twill sooner suffer 
 my eyes to be put out) than my understanding to be extin^ 
 guished, 
 
 Milton's Speech on the unllcenced Liberty of the Press. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 Printed by Johnson (ST Stryker, No. 29 
 Gold-Street y for the Author. 
 
 1801. 
 
 (Copy. Right Secured.) 
 
i.s^n 
 
 ADDRESS, 
 
 ..\. TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 mmm 
 
 -i^OR your permsal the following sheets zverc 
 written; therefore to you are they addressed. To 
 such as may approve of the principles contended fory 
 no defence is necessary. To such as disapprove, the 
 case is the same. Leaving the zvork then, to stand 
 or fall by its own merits, this address shall only state 
 the reasons of publication at this time. 
 
 When the Alien and Sedition Laws were passed in 
 the summer of 1798, it appeared to me, that they 
 xvere the qffspryig of terror and party prejudice, 
 founded upon injustice; and calculated to create more 
 enemies than friends to the government, I conceived 
 it the duty of every man to investigate the principles 
 of the Seditio?: law in particular. At that time, there- 
 fore, I wrote a pamphlet of about half the size of the 
 present. The Epidemic ivhich raged so severely in the 
 Latter part of that summer, and during the fall, pre- 
 vented the publication at the period intended. 
 
 From that time until the last meeting of Congress,' 
 the manuscript has lain past, without the design of 
 publication being again thought of Upon the Com- 
 mittee of unfinished business reporting their opinion 
 of the expedience of renewing the Sedition Law, I 
 determined upon this publication. The substance, 
 and the principal part of the reasonings are the same 
 with the unpublished work just mentioned; but the ar- 
 
 iviii8i520 
 
iv ADDRESS. 
 
 rangement is enthely new, and (he tenor of the rea* 
 soning adapted to the present time. 
 
 If the Sedition Latv, and the manner in zvhich it 
 was carried into execiiiio?i, has contributed in any 
 degree to that change of men and measures which this 
 day takes place ; the; principles contended for, cannot 
 he deemed improper at this important period. If zve 
 have now to congratulate our coimtry upon the expi- 
 ration of this law s then surely we ought to turn our 
 attention to the subject of free enquiry, in order to 
 guard ourselves from being again fettered by a mea- 
 sure of that kind. 
 
 It is not to be expected that many 7iezv ideas can be 
 found upon a subject of this, nature. Buty if the re a- 
 sbnings are just, still 'they may be of use to Society. 
 
 JOHN THOMSON 
 
 NezV'York, March 4:th 1801. 
 
AN 
 
 ENQUIRY, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Licentiousness of the Press, what — By whom it is 
 Complained of , — Difficulty of ascertaining what 
 it is exemplified, 
 
 M HE invention of Printing is universally allowed 
 to have been of the first importance to the in- 
 terests of mankind. All allow it to have been a 
 blessing; but not a few have been bold enough to 
 assert, that JiVe many other blessings it has been 
 abused: and the licentiousness of the Press, has, 
 by certain descriptions of men, been loudly com- 
 plained of. Mankind have, however, differed in 
 opinion regarding the extent, as well as existance 
 of this evil. By some it has been asserted, that if 
 no checks were imposed upon the Press, its licenti- 
 ousness would harrow up every root, and tear as- 
 sunder with savage fury, every bond of human So- 
 ciety. Others however have denied the possibility 
 of any such formidable evil, and treated these conse- 
 quences as mere chimeras. Surely upon a subject 
 where opinions are so diametrically opposite, a short 
 enquiry into the merit of each cannot be deemed 
 unimportant. 
 
 It is not a little remarkable that the opponents to 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 the Liberty of the Press, have always been found 
 among the members of Government interested in the 
 duration of its abuses, or of those whose actions in 
 private life will not bear the scrutinizing eye of 
 moral enquiry. Knowing that free enquiry w^ould 
 to them be extremely fatal, they wished to oppose, 
 if possible, an. insurmountable barrier to the progress 
 of thought, and stifle the expression of public opin- 
 ion ', afraid, or ashamed to have their actions can- 
 vassed by their fellow men, they dreaded appearing 
 before the bar of public opinion. 
 
 An individual who is conscious of the rectitude of 
 his conduct; — who is satisfied of the purity of his 
 motives; w4io has no other object in view but the 
 promotion of justice, and the consequent advantage 
 of the human race: such a character can never fie 
 afraid of public or private animadversion. As truth 
 is his sole aim, and as man is so liable to error, or 
 mistake, he will rather court than shun an invesiga- 
 tion of his motives, conduct, and opinions. The 
 more public this investigation is, the better, as he 
 will either be corrected himself, oi may by his reply 
 correct those of a, dlfFcrcnt opinion. If attacked in 
 his private character, he has nothing to fear from 
 the malignant shafts of envy or malice. In this 
 case, let the accuser put his name to the accusation, 
 and i^ false y it will be easily detected: li trn€y it 
 cannot be too soon known. The reasoning between, 
 the actions of individuals and governments, hold 
 good in a variety of instances; and in none more 
 than in this. The action^ of both ought to be just, 
 and from investigation they have nothing to fear. 
 The virtuous part of the community will always ral- 
 ly around the standard of truth; while the followers 
 of vice will be few in number, as well as deficient 
 in abilities. Reasoning in this manner, I have no 
 hesitation in asserting — that the Licentiousness of 
 
'( ? > 
 
 the Press, is a term destitute of any meaning; or^ 
 if it ever exists, like anarchy it carries the seeds of 
 its immediate destruction along with it. 
 
 I have seen a variety of attempts to define where- 
 in the Licentiousness of the Press consists. As be- 
 fore observed, they have uniformly proceeded from 
 men who evidently wished nobody to enjoy the Li- 
 berty of the Press, but such as were of their opinion. 
 Why will not these men allow the same liberty to 
 others which they claim for themselves? Who con- 
 ferred upon them the authority to say unto those 
 who differ from them in opinion ; " Hitherto shalt 
 thou go and no farther ^ and here shall the progress 
 of thy thoughts be stayed." Nature never conferred 
 such a right; and reason, justice, and the uncon- 
 trolable freedom of thought forbid it. 
 
 We laugh at, and ridicule with good reason, the 
 haughty mandates of the Popes and Councils of the 
 Romish church, when in the plenitude of their power 
 they commanded the people to believe a bit of half- 
 baked dough to be the real body and blood of the 
 Son of Ciod; and we behold with horror and detesta- 
 tion the masacres anrl burnings exercised by them 
 upon such as would not surrender their reason at the 
 shrine of blind superstition, and intolerant folly. 
 We detest the Tyranny of the Grand Seignior and 
 other eastern Tyrants, who prohibit printing alto- 
 gether in their dominions. We pretend to view 
 with a degree of commiseration the fate of those 
 European countries who never enjoyed the inesti- 
 mable right of speaking and publishing their opin- 
 ions; or, who once having had this right, are now 
 either totally, or almost altogether divested of it. If 
 then, thinking and feeling in this manner, we do 
 not guard with the most vigilant care this most im- 
 portant right, we shall be deficient, not only to our 
 own interest and libertv, but also to that of our 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 posterity; who may when it is too late, curse the 
 memories of us their ancestors. If we allow our 
 terrors or prejudices so far to conquer our reason as 
 again silently to acquiesce in the renewal of the Se- 
 dition Law; or tacitly give our consent to any 
 abridgment of the Liberty of the Press. This is the 
 palladium of freedom, which if once destroyed, Li- 
 ty is no more. 
 
 I think I hear some worthy but mistaken indivi- 
 duals exclaim, " Why all this declamation? we 
 wish not to destroy the Liberty of the Press, we 
 only wish to correct and suppress its licentiousness. 
 By this the barriers of liberty will be strengthened." 
 True, they will be strengthened, but it will be a for- 
 tification from which her sons will be forever shut 
 out; unless they storm it at the expence of oceans 
 of human blood. 
 
 " All Nature's difference, is all Nature's peace.'* 
 
 And as in the natural, so in the moral world. Vain 
 would be the task of him who should attempt to 
 make all mankind of one opinion. AVhy then dare 
 to attempt a thing which God has thought fit to ren- 
 der impossible? Wc wish no such thing, many 
 will reply, but there are some opinions the publica- 
 tion of which, would be dangerous to the peace and 
 good order of society, therefore it must be prohibit- 
 ed. This is the licentiousness of the Press; and this 
 prohibition is consistent with its real liberty. Well, 
 allow it. But where are the criterions by which you 
 are to define this licentiousness of the Press? Pro- 
 duce those universal and infallible rules by which 
 we may always know this dangerous evil, an evil 
 fraught with such a horrid train of consequences. 
 Let us make an appeal to the opinions of mankind 
 in various nations. Let us see how they agree in 
 their definitions'; and we shall find them as different 
 as their ipanners, customs, and languages. 
 
{ 9 ) 
 
 Ask a native of the British dominions what Is the 
 licentiousness of the press? He will tell you (if he 
 answers with candor) it is scrutinizing the actions of 
 government, daring to speak differently from those 
 in administration, presuming to say a reform in 
 Parliament is necessary, that a republican govern- 
 ment is preferable to a monarchical ; or, having the 
 still greater temerity to say, that the king can, may, 
 or has done wTong. 
 
 Request a French Republican to inform you what 
 are his ideas upon the subject ? He will reply, it is 
 advocating the cause of royalty and aristocracy -, 
 preaching up federalism; daring to call Buonaparte 
 an usurper, or the government (what it really is) a 
 military despotism. 
 
 Desire a Spaniard or Portuguese to answer the 
 same question ; They will tell you it is presuming to 
 say any thing against the king, nobility, clergy, or 
 any who are in authority; daring to express your 
 opinions upon religious matters in public, if they 
 differ from holy pfeother church ! 
 
 Enquire of a Mussulman, he will tell yoii there Is 
 no 5uch thing as opinion to be exercised, except by 
 the Grand Seignior or Mufti ; that all things are 
 predestinated in the book of fate, and it is the duty 
 of the followers of the great prophet to adore in 
 •silence, and bow down to the mortal who sends a 
 mute with a bow string to strangle whomsoever he 
 pleaseth. 
 
 Lastly. — Ask an Aborigine of this country to give 
 you his opinion concerning speech and- thought. 
 If he comprehends your meaning, he will tell you 
 to think what you please, and speak what you think. 
 
 Which of these would you choose to be regulated 
 by in your correcting the licentiousness of the press? 
 I believe you neither would take the Spaniard, Por- 
 tuguese nor Turk. The inquisition of the ,/irsl, and 
 
 B 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 the bow string of the last, would soon convince you 
 of the error of your choice. If you be a good Re- 
 publican, you will hardly admire the British doctrine 
 of royal infallibility, or the justice of about a fortieth 
 part of the people only being represented in the 
 Legislature; while the majority must submit to laws 
 they never consented to : If they express their opi- 
 nions of such an absurdity, and endeavour to get 
 the evil remedied, they must run the risk of minis- 
 terial vengeance -, of being hanged, xirawn and 
 quartered; or taking a voyage to Botany Bay, in 
 company with convicts of the most abandoned cha- 
 racters. Will yon not, if you are a man of candour, 
 rather approve of the opinion of the ^^ untutored 
 Indian." Is it not founded upon justice, and 
 the nature of man? " Yes, but we must not 
 allovv any publication to be circulated, or opinions 
 promulgated, which may tend to alineate the affec- 
 tions of the people from the government of their 
 own choice. A liberty such as this, can never be 
 allowed In any government." Let us then investi- 
 gate this opinion with that freedom with which free 
 men should 5 and that temper which an enquiry 
 after truth deserves. Open to conviction, and hav- 
 ing no end to gain but the advancement of justice 
 and truth, I shall not shrink from an Investigation 
 of my opinion. If instead of the weapons of reason, 
 the force of authority be made use of against me, 
 I must, like the Turk, submit (though not with 
 silence) for such a mode of argumentation is not the 
 most likely to convince. 
 
( H ) 
 
 CHAP. IL 
 
 Liberty of the Press, what. — Enquiry concerning ili^ 
 jiatiire of thought, — Objection stated and answered, 
 — Omnipotence of inind. — Uncontroulable in its 
 nature. 
 
 I^EEING the task is so difficult to ascertain what 
 the Licentiousness of the Press is, let us proceed in 
 our enquiry concerning its liberty. I have often 
 heard that definitions upon abstract principles were 
 both difficult and dangerous. Difficult, because as 
 they do not in their nature admit of occular mathe- 
 matical demonstration; therefore, they never can be 
 proved in such a manner as to acquire universal 
 consent. Dangt^rous, because if not radically right, 
 they may be apt to mislead numbers of those who 
 are incapable of understanding abstract reasoning; 
 and therefore, taking thera upon trust, look upoa 
 them as incontrovertable. Notwithstanding these 
 difficulties, I shall here attempt a definition of what 
 I mean by the liberty of the press; simplified in such 
 a manner as to be easily understood. The definition 
 is this : 
 
 All men are endowed, by nature, w^ith the power 
 of thinking ; yet have they no controul over their 
 thoughts. As no individual can prevent the opera- 
 tion of this principle within himself, much less can 
 he direct those of any other person. If this is the 
 case with one individual, it must be so with all ; 
 therefore, no association of men, however nume- 
 rous or respectable, can ever have a right to say you 
 shall not think this, or you shall think that : this be- 
 ing a power which does not exist among mankind. 
 Consequently it must follow, that men should be al- 
 lowed to express those thoughts, with the same 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 freedom that they arise. In other words — speak, or 
 publish, whatever you believe to be truth. 
 
 Let us now examine the subject agreeable to this 
 definition. 
 
 Man, when he comes into the world, is not con- 
 scious of his own existence. Mind he has not; or 
 if he has, it is of no use to him. It is a total blank. 
 Destitute of thought or ideas, he will grasp at a 
 thing that may be hurtful to him, with the same 
 eagerness as at that which will give him pleasure. 
 Man then, must be the creature of education. His 
 mind is like a sheet of blank paper, upon which 
 yoii may write whatever you please. Now as thought 
 is nothing more than the operations of the muidy 
 it must at first be excited by outward objects. These 
 iirst efforts of the mind, are, however, extremely im- 
 perfect ; nor is it for a considerable time that they 
 acquire a regular form. As the child advances, 
 every object around him is new; and he begins to 
 distinguish between what gives him pleasure, and 
 that which occasions pain. The mind thus set in 
 motion, continues its operations; and as the objects 
 are still encreasing in number, so in proportion does 
 his ideas expand. He begins to compare and 
 combine, but is frequently mistaken in his 
 conclusions, and is compelled to resort to those who 
 are older, for assistance. He probably receives the 
 advice and instruction of his elders at first, without 
 examination, believing them to be true. If, how- 
 ever, he should find that his tutors have been 
 mistaken, and that they told him something which 
 he found not to be true, a more minute examination 
 takes place, and he receives with greater caution 
 any information in a similar manner. Hence chil- 
 dren ought always to be told the truth ; for, if they 
 find themselves deceived, their education is injured^ 
 
( IS ) 
 
 and their moral principles may receive a dangerous 
 contamination. 
 
 Thus the human mind progresses; but though this 
 be its general progress, yet there are a variety of 
 circumstances always occur to prove, that even^n 
 this early stage of life, the mind of man is of that 
 subtile nature, as not to be under human controul. 
 
 One child prefers a drum, his brother prefers 
 something else. Neither of them are capable of 
 assigning at this age any other reason, than that it 
 pleases them. As they advance in life, they adopt 
 different opinions; and this they can no more help, 
 than they could preferring different play things. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is chiefly education which deter- 
 mines the human character; and perhaps this 
 difference in the opinions of childhood, might be 
 traced to this origin, were we sufficiently acquainted 
 with all the previous circumstances thereupon atten- 
 dant. In either case, it will eq ually serve to illustrate 
 the subject of our present enquiry, because it shews 
 the natural propensity of mankind to differ in 
 opinion. So much may serve to shew the first 
 operations of the human mind. Let us now examine 
 the second article of the definition, viz. That man 
 has no controul over his oxvn thoughts. 
 
 From comparing this with the first part of the 
 definition, it has a paradoxical appearance. Per- 
 haps, however, it may upon examination be found 
 true. 
 
 All the actions of men proceed from the operations 
 of the mind. Pleasure and pain are the immediate 
 determining motives. A boy is told by his father 
 that he must not eat any unripe fruit, because it will 
 injure his health. He has, however, frequently seen 
 other children eat of it; and he has not been able 
 to perceive that it hurt them; or, if he has, he has 
 seen others that it did not hurt. In either case, if 
 
{ 14 ) 
 
 the acid taste of this fruit should be agreeable to his 
 palate, he will in all probability eat it if he can get 
 it. What determines him in this case? It is because 
 the idea of pleasure^ predominates over the idea of 
 paiji; and that for this reason, the pleasure is imme- 
 diate , the pain is to come ; and he conceives there is 
 a chance of avoiding it. If his determination is 
 opposite, then the idea of pain, predominates over 
 that of pleasure. In either case, though his mind 
 be the active agent; it is purely passive with regard 
 to the final determination. That is, whatever for 
 the time being is most predominant, will determine 
 the mind for or against the action. 
 
 The case is the same throughout every stage of 
 our existence. A proposition is proposed to two 
 men ; they view it in opposite lights ; their determi- 
 nations are diametrically the reverse of each other, 
 yet each beHeves his own to be most agreeable to 
 reason. This arises entirely from the different point 
 of view in w^hich it appears to them. And, it follows 
 of course, that neither party has any controul over 
 his own thought; on the contrary, it is his thought 
 which controuls him. 
 
 Reasoning upon this theory of the human mind, 
 a very slight examination of the subject will serve 
 to establish my proposion. 
 
 It has been observed by some philosophers, that 
 310 two objects in nature, were ever, or can be 
 exactly alike. Whether this be really the case or 
 not, I shall not at this time enquire. Upon the 
 foregoing grounds, however, I will venture to 
 affirm — that no. object whatever, whether mental, 
 or corporeal; ever did, or can appear in the exact 
 same point of view, to any two individuals. In a 
 variety of cases, both may agree in their general 
 approbation, or disapprobation ; but if their motives 
 are thoroughly examined, they will in some shape 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 or other be found to differ', notwithstanding their 
 final conclusion may agree. Hence arises that vast 
 variety of opinions v^hich exist in the world upon 
 every art and science, as well as upon the actions 
 of mankind, whether public or private. Were the 
 case otherwise, we should see mankind agreeing in 
 every opinion ^ and no sooner should a new idea be 
 started upon any subject, than its truth would be 
 universally acknowledged, or its falsehood immedi- 
 ately detected. But is this the case ? On the con- 
 trary. Is not the very reverse true ? Men of science 
 have differed, and still differ in many of their 
 opinions; and it is to this very difference, that man- 
 kind are indebted for those discussions which have 
 from time to time agitated the scientific world, and 
 to which are justly to be ascribed, the gratitude of 
 mankind for the superlative scientific advantages 
 they now enjoy. No danger is ever apprehended 
 from discussions of this kind; and if the same 
 unrestrained freedom were permitted in poHtical 
 and all other investigations, the same beneficial 
 effects would follow. If all political opinions, and 
 discussions upon those opinions had been thus 
 viewed, then neither sedition nor alien laws would 
 ever have disgraced the American code. 
 
 Government then ought no more to interfere with 
 the discussion of politics, than with that of any other 
 art or science. Were this maxim adopted, all such 
 discussions would be equally harmless. As man 
 individually has no controul over his own mind, so 
 it must follow of. course, that he never could have 
 delegated that to a government, which he did not 
 himself posses. As well might I say to my neigh- 
 bour, I will give you a million of dollars, when I 
 have not a cent in the world. It is like the poor 
 maniac in bedlam, who believing himself to be the 
 Pope, granted pardons and indulgencies -, and gave 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 away empires, kingdoms and provinces every day, 
 while he himself was confined to a cell and straw 
 with bread and water. 
 
 But who are the government ? Are they not men like 
 ourselves, subject to the same passions, liable to the 
 same errors, and whose minds must j^o through all 
 the mechanical progress of our own r If then they 
 are not in this respect superior to their fellow men; 
 and if their constituents possess no power over their 
 own individual mind ; if they of course cannot give 
 that power to the members of government; by 
 what right moral or divine, abstract, or pofitive, 
 can government exert such a power over their fellow 
 citizens ? Surely that government which imposes, or 
 attempts to impose, restrictions upon the expressioa 
 of sentiment, or interferes in the direction of opi- 
 nion ; such men exercise a power they nevet 
 received, and which from the nature of things they 
 never could receive. They attempt to exert an 
 authority over the minds of the community, and yet 
 they posses no such power over their own. 
 
 An objection may be stated against part of this 
 reasoning, vyhich to some may appear unanswerable. 
 It is this : ** You say that man cannot give a power 
 to government, which they do not individually pos- 
 sess. No man is endowed with sufficient power to 
 repell all the aggressions to which he may be exposed 
 from those who are stronger in body, but less honest 
 in principle; therefore, man not possessing individu- 
 ally any such power, they cannot delegate that 
 power to government." 
 
 In answer to this objection, it may be replied, that 
 the two cases are by no means similar. All power 
 which is delegated to government, is upon the princi- 
 ple of uniting the force of the society in one common 
 centre, for the mutual benefit of the whole, and to 
 protect the strong from tyrannyzing over the weak. 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 It Is also empowered to call forth the united energies 
 of the people, in case of foreign invasion. Now we 
 all know, that no single individual of the commu- 
 nity can do any of those things himself; nevertheless, 
 the united delegation of the people can. It is only 
 concentrating a force which they mutually possess, 
 that it may be exerted so as to answer the end pro- 
 posed. But in the case of public opinion, or any 
 attempt- over the mind of man, the means never 
 could be sufficient to answer the end. 
 
 Suppose that a majority of the people of all the 
 •states of the union should agree to confer the right, 
 or power, upon the Federal Government of calling 
 themselves omnipotent and infallible. SuppOvSe also, 
 that along with this, they were told they should pass 
 a law making it death for any person in the United 
 States to think otherwise. Could such a law ever an- 
 swer the end ? No. For though it might shut the 
 mouths of the remaining part of the people, and stop 
 their pens upon the subject, it is altogether impossi- 
 ble they ever could believe it. The human mind 
 would still continue its operations. It would compare 
 and combine facts and circumstances. It would invo- 
 luntarily approve or disapprove of every act of the 
 government, and though prevented from publishing 
 its opinions, would still believe a spade to be a spade, 
 and the Federal Government to be composed of 
 men, of men who in accepting such titles, wxre 
 guilty of impiety unequaled, but by that part of 
 the community who conferred them. Allow me 
 to add, such is the omnipotence and uncontroulable 
 nature of mind, that no power less than OMNI- 
 POTENCE itself, is competent to the task of guiding 
 or directing it. It is uncontroulable by all but HIM 
 who made it what it is. \ 
 
 The omnipotence of mind may seem to contradici 
 that part of my definition, which says, that man ha< 
 
 C 
 
( 18 1 
 
 no controul over his own thoughts. This however is 
 one of the reasons of its omnipotence. It is likewise 
 so upon other accounts. A man wherever he is, can, 
 by an exertion of his mind, be transported in idea 
 to the most distant part of the globe; — to the 
 utmost limits of the universe ; — nay, to the empy- 
 rean itself. He can by the mere fiat of this mighty 
 power not only recall from the dead his most inti- 
 mate friends, but he can converse as it were with 
 those who lived thousands of years before himself 
 had an existance. He can by the operations of his mind 
 recall the days of old, and the occurrences of other 
 times. The mind reviews the horrors and misfor- 
 tunes that it has experienced, and it suiters again. 
 The mind recals the pleasures that are past, and 
 glows with renovated joy. The mind surveys the 
 past, and anticipates the future, and feels the alter- 
 nate agitations of hope and fear. In all these, mind 
 is omnipotent; in all these, mind is uncontroulable. 
 As well might government enact a law prohibiting 
 mans mind from these operations, as from any other. 
 As vain would be the task as to attempt to confine 
 the lion with the spider's web. As xvise as the 
 scheme of the m.en of Gotham, who, in order to 
 confine a Cuckow, planted a hedge round their 
 town. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Fi^ee discussion, — Hoivviezved by thefratners of fhc 
 Federal Constitution. — Objections to the foregoing 
 reasoning stated and answered. —Sedition haw in 
 the hands of government like Jupiters thunder. 
 
 XFsuch be the construction of the human mind; 
 if such is its uncontroulable nature even to the 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 individual himself, the absurdity of others directing 
 its operations will doubtless be admitted : -Oovern- 
 ments can then have no such right, if they had it, 
 it would be extremely injurious to their interests ; 
 for, if it be admitted that free discussion has been 
 of advantage to other sciences ; then why may it 
 not be of equal advantage to the science of politics? 
 The most violent advocate for the sedition law will 
 surely acknowledge, that had it not been for discus- 
 smi, these States had never been in a situation to 
 have asserted and gained their independence. H.ad 
 it not been for discussion, the Federal Government 
 never would have existed. Certain it is, that the 
 convention who framed this instrument, either were, 
 or appeared to be, fully impressed with the impor- 
 tance of unrestrained discussion. 
 
 In the first article, and sixth section of the con- 
 stitution are these words : — " And for any speech or 
 debate in either house they shall not be questioned in 
 tiny other place,'* Thus have our Legislators secured 
 to themselves the right of free discussion in their 
 legislative capacities, and the people of the United 
 States have guarrantee'd this right by their accep- 
 tance of the Constitution. If then those men are at 
 liberty to say what they please in Congress, why 
 should they abridge this right in the people.? By 
 what principle of justice or equity is it that the people 
 ought to submit to such restrictions as have been 
 imposed upon them by the late Sedition law? Why 
 should they who are the servants or agents of the 
 people ; who are paid by the people for their servi- 
 ces, why ought they to impose restrictions upon the 
 thoughts, words, or writings of their sovreign.? laat 
 power who has created them, and can by a fiat of 
 its will, reduce them again to tlie level of private ci- 
 tizens. If free discussion be advantageous to them, 
 it must be equally so to the people. Without this 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 Tight being exercised in the unlimitted manner se- 
 cured by the Constitution, the two houses of Con- 
 gress could not exercise the functions of a Legisla- 
 tive body; and without it is enjoyed by the people 
 in the same way, ignorance and despotism would 
 soon be the inevitable consequence. For, if it be 
 necessary for the one, it is equally necessary for 
 both. The words of the Constitution before quoted, 
 proves this position. It is founded upon- the very 
 natural and just supposition, that among such a 
 number of individuals, a great variety of opposite 
 opinions must occur. It also presupposes that the 
 people w^ould pass their judgment upon the proceed- 
 ings of Congress. As in passing judgment upon 
 what they said in the course of debate, something 
 might occur tending to displease either states or indi- 
 viduals, it was proper to guard the members of 
 Congress against any other judgment than that of 
 reason, and public opinion. If such be the neces- 
 sity of the case to the government, (as before observ- 
 ed,) it is equally so to the people ; and it ' is a fair 
 deduction to suppose it was contemplated that the 
 same right of free discussion should be guarrantee'd 
 to the people, in as much as it is expressly said in 
 the twelfth article of the amendments to the Consti- 
 tution, that " The powers not delegated to the 
 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited 
 by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec- 
 tively, or to the people." No article of the Consti- 
 tution ever abridged this right in the people, and so 
 far from being delegated, it is expressly secured to 
 them by the third article of the amendments. 
 
 I am aware that part, if not the whole of the 
 above reasoning may be controverted, and a con- 
 clusion directly opposite may be attempted to be 
 drawn. It may be said, and it has beeil said, that 
 this very clause in the Constitution was intended to 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 protect members of Congress from all animadver- 
 sions upon their conduct, through the medium 
 of either speech or press. The days of terror to the 
 honest republican it is hoped now are past ; and 
 political delusion is near its end. Such an argu- 
 ment will never be made use of by any, except 
 those who may prefer sophistry to reason. It is 
 evident both from the zvor^ds and spirit of the 
 constitution, that the members should not be pro- 
 secuted before any court or tribunal for an opinion 
 delivered in the course of debate. It never could 
 mean that the people in their individual capacity 
 were not to exercise their judgment ; neither could 
 it have been intended to prevent the free operation 
 of that judgment either by speech or press. The 
 article in the amendments to the Constitution, which 
 was intended to secure the Liberty of Speech and 
 Press, shews it was understood in this way, by 
 Congress themselves, as well as by the State Le- 
 gislatures who ratified those articles. Even the 
 British Parliament, who claim the proud title of om- 
 nipotence, never claimed an exemption of this kind 
 from public censure. Pit, Dundass, and all the other 
 members of the British administration, daily see 
 their actions and speeches animadverted upon with 
 great freedom, and sometimes even with severity. 
 
 Government is ostensibly for the benefit of the 
 governed ; not of the governors. That the reverse 
 has often been true, does not overthrow the truth 
 of the general position. The government of the 
 United States is founded upon the acknowledge- 
 ment of the people, being the sole, and only foun- 
 tain from which all their power and authority are 
 derived. It is the creature of the people ; the peo- 
 ple are not the creatures of its will. The Executive 
 and Legislative, both are from the same source. If 
 so, is it not then absurd in this government to say 
 
( 22 ) . 
 
 unto the people — " You shall not think this, or that 
 upon certain subjects; or if you do, it is at your pe- 
 ril. We shall certainly punish you for such conduct. 
 It is true, the freedom of Speech and Liberty of the 
 Press are secured to you by the Constitution, but it 
 is us, who are to determine how far this is to be ex- 
 ercised. If we find you too bold in your language, 
 or too free in your enquiries concerning our conduct, 
 we will shew you that we have power^ and it shall 
 be exerted. 
 
 In any government which pretends te be actuat- 
 ed by the principles of justice or hberty, such lan- 
 guage would be absurd. What then shall we say 
 of the government of the United States; that go- 
 vernment which owes its origin and its existence to 
 the voice of the people, if such language is made 
 use of by them ? What is the amount of the late Se- 
 dition law.'* It is this. " You citizens 6f the Unit- 
 ed States, shall believe that all we do is right; if 
 not, you shall be fined, and imprisoned. Your 
 understanding we despise; argument we will not 
 bestow upon you; coercion shall convince you." 
 This is surely the language of despotism, not of rea- 
 son. A government fenced round with penal codes, 
 and Sedition laws, must surely repose but little con- 
 fidence in their own claims to the approbation of 
 their fellow-citizens. It is like the countryman and 
 Jupiter in die fable, as related by Lucian. These 
 met upon the road, and entered into a conversation 
 upon the subject of heaven and earth. Jupiter as- 
 serted a variety of ciicumstances concerning these, 
 which the countryman doubted, and demanded some 
 reasons and proofs, before giving hisasscent to them. 
 This Jupiter refused to give, and flew into a violent 
 passion, threatening him with his thiLnde7\ " Ah ! 
 ha!" says the countryman, " now Jupiter, I know 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 you are wrong, you are always ivro?ig when you ap- 
 peal to your thunder.'^ 
 
 May we not apply this to every government who 
 attempts to enforce respect from any other source, 
 than the involuntary applause which virtue and rec- 
 titude alway can command? This approbation a 
 virtuous people will at all times willingly bestow, 
 and a virtuous government will be fully satisfied with 
 receiving. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Four propositions stated ajid examined. — Nature and 
 design of Constitutions. — Their obligations 
 upon the government. — Opinion of Dean Sxvijt up- 
 on this sid)ject. — Of Camillus. — Deductions from 
 those reasonings. 
 
 T 
 
 HE absurdity of government attempting to en- 
 force approbation, or to silence animadversion, will 
 perhaps, appear more forcibly by the statement, and 
 examination of the four following propositions. 
 
 1st. Either the government are appinted by the 
 people, or they are not. 
 
 2d. Either the government are bound by those 
 rules the people have prescribed, whether by xvrit- 
 ien Constitutions y or by long established customs, 
 or they are not. 
 
 3d. Either the administrators of government are 
 bound by the rules of Eternal justice, in their pub- 
 lic, as well as private capacities, or they are not. 
 
 4th. Governments are either the servants of the 
 people, or they are their masters. 
 
 Let us shortly consider and examine each of these 
 propositions in order. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 And first. That the government of the United 
 States was appointed by the people, is an uncontro- 
 vertible fact. The natural deduction from this is, 
 that being so appointed, they never could receive 
 an authority for exercising any powder, which the 
 people do not aggregatly themselves posses. Con- 
 sequently, as has been before observed, the people 
 not being in' possesion of any controuling power 
 over their own thoughts, never could have delegated 
 that which they themselves did not, could not 
 have. 
 
 The only question then is this : Is, or was, the 
 Sedition Law an attempt to controul public opinion, 
 and prevent its free operation ? If it was not, then 
 government have not acted upon any unconstitu- 
 tional grounds; but if it was, then was it in contra- 
 diction to an express article of that Constitution. 
 
 Second. Either the government are hound by those 
 rules the people have prescribed; whether by writ- 
 ten Constitutions, or long establish ed customs, 
 or they are not. 
 
 All governments which have existed, have pre- 
 tended to be guided by certain primary rules or cus- 
 toms. The Federal Government is bound by a 
 WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, one of the articles 
 of which is in these words : " Congress shall mak^ 
 no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
 prohibiting tJie free exercise thereof, or abridging 
 the freedom of speech, or of the PRESS, 
 or the right of the people peaceq^bly to assemble, and 
 to petition the governmentfor a redress of grievances'^ 
 Article 3d of the amendment to the Constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 I have quoted the whole of this article, in order 
 to shew it as it is ; it is however only a part of it 
 which is necessary to be appealed to in the fol- 
 lowing reasoning. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 Tlie first thing here to be considered, is, whether 
 tTie Sedition law is or is not a law which tends to 
 abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press. Let 
 facts bear witness. What was James Thomson 
 Callender proscuted for at Richmond? For publish- 
 ing his opinions through the medium of the Press. 
 What ^ was Charles Holt, the Editor of the New- 
 London Bee, prosecuted for? Because he publish- 
 ed the opinions of another person. What was 
 Thomas Cooper prosecuted for? For publishing 
 his opinions through the same mode of communica- 
 tion: — VIZ. the Press, If these prosecutions were 
 not for the pitblication of opinions, then the Consti- 
 tution has not been violated by them; but if they 
 were for opinions, (and that they were those trials 
 will testify,)' then the Constitution has been violated, 
 both by the Sedition law under which they were 
 convicted, and by the prosecutions themselves. It 
 is absurd to say they were convicted for libellous and 
 false publications, and that this very law allows the 
 truth of the publication to be given as exculpatory 
 evidence. J. T. Callender was refused by the court 
 that time which was necessary to bring his evidences 
 forward. To tell a man that he has a inght, and to 
 refuse him the exercise of that right, is an insult to 
 the common sense of mankind. 
 
 It has been maintained, that the Sedition -law was 
 not unconstitutional, notwithstanding what is said 
 in the before quoted article. In support of this 
 opinion, the eighteenth clause of the eighth section 
 of the Constitution, Article first has been adduced. It 
 says that the Congress -shall have power " To make 
 all laws which shall be necessary and proper for car- 
 rying into execution the foregoing powers, and all 
 ether powers vested by this Constitution in the 
 government of the United States, or in any depart- 
 ment or officer thereof." 
 
 P 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 This it must be confessed, is what it has often 
 been called " a sweeping clause." It has not^ 
 however, been proved that it empowered Congress 
 to restrict the freedom of Speech or Press. Until 
 this can be proved, all the reasonings upon that 
 clause in favour of the Sedition law, must fall to the 
 ground. It is surely paying a very scurvy compli- 
 ment to the federal government, to say that it was 
 necessary to have a law passed to protect any of the 
 members from the free animadversions of their con- 
 stituents. Oliver Cromwell ordered those things 
 better. When he had seized and detained the man- 
 uscript of Harrington's Oceana, the author one day 
 •took the opportunity of seizing, and running ofF 
 with a child of the Protector's daughter. He was 
 taken and carried before Cromwell, who questioned 
 him concerning his motive for so uncommon an out- 
 rage. " You have taken inij child from me," said 
 the undaunted republican. What child? " My 
 Oceana." The Protector laughed, and ordered the 
 manuscript to be given him, observing at the same 
 time, " that his government was surely proof against 
 paper shot." 
 
 If such w^as the opinion of a Tyrant and Usurper, 
 how ought those to be ashamed who assert that the 
 federal government is in danger from the same sort 
 of ammunition ; and that too, from the very people 
 by whose consent it exists, iDy whose will it had a 
 beginning? ^ 
 
 Let any unprejudiced person compare the law, 
 and the manner in which it has been carried into ef- 
 fect, with the Constitution, and then say whether 
 the one be consistent with the other. Supposing 
 only, however that it should be inconsitent with the 
 Constitution, what would then be the consequence ? 
 If the people are satisfied it is enough, at least, for 
 the governnrent. While the people submit to It 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 from choice, no one. can have any thing to say be- 
 tween the government and them. It would be a 
 pity to compell those who are wilHng to be slaves, 
 to become freemen. If on the contrary, the peo- 
 ple are not satisfied, a contest of some kind or other 
 must inevitably take place between the governors, 
 and the governed. The issue of such contest will be 
 one of two things. Either the government will 
 compell the people to submit to their decision, or the 
 peopje oblige the government to be directed by the 
 public will. In either case the Constitution ivoiild 
 be violated s no matter in how small, no matter in 
 how minute a part. Like the great system of nature 
 
 " Tenth, or tenth thoufandth breaks the chain alike." 
 
 For, if the government should attempt to palliate 
 or defend their conduct in this case, it would not 
 change the nature of the principle. Suppose they 
 were to say, " It is an extraordinary case — the 
 country is in great and imminent danger from exter- 
 nal enemies, and internal foes ; your government is 
 assailed upon every side, ^ for we have fallen in evil 
 times, yea, in evil times have we fallen," this law is 
 indeed beyond the strict letter of the Constitution, 
 but it is for yonr^ and our safety and advantage. 
 As soon as the circumstances of the times alter, you 
 shall again enjoy your rights and privileges, and xve 
 shall again resort unto the strict letter of the Consti- 
 tution.'* 
 
 Supposing all this to be true. Supposing also, 
 that the members of government are patriots, un- 
 ambitious, strictly virtuous and honesty still it is ta 
 be remembered, they are not immortal! Other Pha- 
 roah$ may arise, who know not Joseph. They 
 may, before the situation of the country is changed* 
 be no more. Others may succeed less virtuous> 
 and more ambitious than they. Finding themselves 
 strongly fortified by penal codes, and Sedition laws, 
 and vainly imagining that in proportion as they iu- 
 
( 28 ) , 
 
 crease their power, they will add to their happiness; 
 they may look upon the violated and prostrate Con- 
 stitution, as " a dead letter that profiteth nothing/* 
 and consign it to the shades of oblivion. 
 
 These are no vain suppositions. They are with- 
 in the circle o^ possibility ; and whatever is so, may 
 happen ^ and ought, by every wise man, and, free 
 people to be strictly guarded against. If such 
 should ever be the situation of these States, — if, 
 stich should ever be the sentiments of their govern- 
 ment, — if such should ever be the tame submission 
 of their citizens, — Where would then be the ad- 
 vantages of their excellent Constitution ? — where 
 w^ould then be their rights and liberties ? They 
 w^ould then look back with regret at their supine- 
 ness, and forward with horror at their situation ! 
 
 The design of •written Constitutions was to pre*, 
 scribe the duty of the Government, to ascertain what 
 xiegree of power was delegated to it, and to declare, 
 what natural rights the people had given up, and 
 what they had retained. They are certainly a great 
 improvement in the science of government. It has 
 indeed been maintained by a late political* writer 
 of the first eminence, that they are liable to serious; 
 objections, and that upon the ground of political 
 justice they ought not to exist. It is not for me to. 
 enter the lists of controversy with so profound a rea- 
 soner ; neither in the present instance would it 
 affect my argument, though the truth of v^^hat he 
 endeavours to establish, were fully proven. While 
 such an instrument exists y it is a compact of the 
 most important kind, a bond of the most solemn 
 obligation upon the Government. No excuses of 
 times, or circumstances ought ever to be admitted 
 
 * Godwin in his work entitled " An Encjuiry concerning political' 
 juBkc,'* 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 of by the people. No virtuous and patriotic Gok 
 vernment will ever attempt to offer them. 
 
 Even under the Brkish Government, where no 
 written instrument, of this kind ever existed ; but 
 in which country the principles of liberty were for 
 a long period better understood than in any other 
 European country : even there, what is called the 
 Constitution^ has by all patriotic writers been view- 
 ed in the same light which I do xmdtten Constitu- 
 tions. Dean Swift says upon this subject, after 
 supposing that the plea of expedience and neces- 
 sity would be urged by the Government : ^' This 
 is breaking into a Constitution to serve a prcscM 
 expedient., or supply a present exigency : The 
 remedy of an emperick, to stifle the present pain, 
 but with certain prospect of sudden and terrible 
 returns.'* 
 
 Upon this subject also, I shall here cite the- 
 opinion of a well known, and; eminent writer in. 
 this country. It is so explicit, that the quota tioa 
 needs no comment. 
 
 *' The members of the Legislature, collectivelj/ 
 and individually^ are under a constitutional ob- 
 ligation to observe the injunctions of a pre-exist- 
 ing law, and to give it effect. If they act other- 
 wise, they infringe the Constitution, the theory 
 of which, knows no such case, no discretion 
 on their part. To resort to first principles for their 
 justification in assuming such a discretion, is •♦to 
 go out of the Constitution, for an authority which 
 they cannot find in it ; it is to usurp the original 
 character of the people themselves, it is in principle 
 to prostrate, the Government. 
 
 " The cases must be very extraordinary that can 
 excuse so violent an assumption of discretion.^ 
 They must be of a kind to authorize a revolution 
 in Government 5 for every resort to original prin- 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 ciples in derogation from the established Constitu* ' 
 tion, partakes of this character."* 
 
 From what has been said in this chapter, the 
 following deductions may be drawn. 
 
 While a people have prescribed to their Govern- 
 ment, such certain and unequivocal rules for the 
 conduct of the administration of their functions, as 
 the people of the United States have done, they 
 must surely be obligatory. The Government can 
 have no more constitutional right to enact laws in 
 contradiction to the express and positive -letter of 
 that Constitution, than the people to refuse obedi- 
 ence to constitutional laws. In the one case, it 
 would be the Government violating that which they 
 have solemnly sworn to observe ; in the other, it 
 would be the People refusing submission to the 
 laws themselves had authorised, and to which they 
 had sworn to give their support. Both would be 
 vices of the worst kind, both would be productive 
 of destruction to that social order, without which, 
 society could not exist. 
 
 The Liberty of Speech and Press being of the 
 first importance to mankind, ought to be guarded 
 with the most jealous vigilance.^ No pretences or 
 excuses ought to be adduced by the Government, 
 nor admitted by the People. The same duly 
 which oblige the people to yield a prompt and 
 willing obedience to constitutional laws, direct 
 them to oppose every one of an opposite kind. 
 
 It ought also to be observed, that as the <:o7isii- 
 iuiionality of the Sedition law, is like most other 
 subjects, a matter of opinion ; it ought to be exam- 
 ned and compared with the Constitution. If the 
 public opinion can reconcile the one witli the 
 other, then all is well, if they conceive that neither 
 
 * See Caawllus on the Brlilflv Treatyv 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 speech iior press is shackled by its operation, it 
 is also well; but if they think the contrary is 'the 
 case, then let them determine that it shall never 
 exist again. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Examination of the propositions continued. — Danger 
 of Precedent. — Exemplified in the British Go- 
 vernment. — In the French. — Absurditj/ of political 
 nick-names in free discussion. — If the Constitution 
 he defective^ let it he amended. 
 
 I 
 
 N the examination of the proposition we are 
 now considering, the doctrine oi precedent naturally 
 presents itself to our view. A more dangerous 
 principle never could be advanced, either by Go- 
 vernments or individuals. In private life, were it 
 made the criterion of action, it would justify the 
 most attrocious deeds, as however horrid or unjust, 
 others might be adduced of equal terpitude. la 
 Governments they are equally dangerous to the 
 liberties of the people, as in private life they 
 would be to the interests of morahty. Most of 
 the glaring encroachments of governments upon 
 the rights and liberties of the governed, have origi- 
 nated from precedent. Some trifling circumstance oc- 
 curs in itself of little, or no importance, but which is 
 contrary in its nature to the prescribed rules of the 
 Constitution. The people acquiesce in it, because 
 they view it as insignificant. The ministerial po- 
 litician however, views it in a different manner, 
 and justly conceives it to be the foundation of other 
 inovations, upon which he thinks may be reared 
 
i 32 ) 
 
 the structure of despotic power, while the for7n 
 of the original Constitution will still remain. 
 
 To shew that this is really the case, let us resort 
 for an elucidation of the subject to the British 
 Government, and to that of France. There we 
 "will behold the danger of precedent pourtrayed in 
 its true colours. 
 
 When the British had compelled the bigotted 
 tyrant James the Second, to leave his country and 
 throne, by the assistance of the Prince of Orange 
 in 1688 : it was then supposed (and has been often 
 since believed) that they acquired their liberty. 
 However, this point may be disputed, certain it is 
 that the prerogative of the king, and the privi- 
 ledges of the parliament were better defined than 
 formerly. The people indeed, were left as they 
 were, with the very important right of petitioning, 
 " A right,'* (as has been observed be a late writer) 
 " of which we might as well talk, as of the right 
 of blowing one's nose." It was neither more nor 
 less than the right of the most abject slaves, under 
 the most despotic government ; however, even 
 ihiSy the people arc now by the British Government 
 deprived of, because they are not allowed to assem- 
 ble, except under such restrictions, as amounts to 
 a total prohibition ; and how is this ? how does it 
 arise ? it has proceeded from precedent. 
 
 At the period of the revolution I have just now 
 mentioned, triennial parliaments were established, 
 and it was determined that the term of their ex- 
 istence should not be lengthened. It was an ac- 
 knowledged principle in their supposed Constitution. 
 It was also determined about, or at that time, that 
 place-men, and pensioners, should not be allowed 
 tosit in Parliament, and that for the very obvious 
 reason, of preventing tbxc king having an undue 
 influence over the House of Commons. The Libera 
 
{ 33 ) 
 
 iy of the Press was also guarantee'd though under 
 certain restrictions. The nature of the British 
 Government is now entirely changed. Tricnnihi 
 parliaments, have given place to Scptiennial ones. 
 Place-men and pensioners abound in the House of 
 Commons ; the Liberty of the Press can hardly 
 . be said to exist, and as before observed, the people 
 are not allowed to assemble together, to discuss 
 political subjects, or petition that parliament which 
 ought to be their servants, w'hich ought to be the 
 organ of the public will. 
 
 The rebellion in Scotland, of 1715, afforded the 
 Parliament, then sitting, a pretence for prolonging 
 their existence for seven years, lest by a general 
 election, a number of Jacobites should be re- 
 turned. 
 
 Under the pretence of honouring those who had 
 served their country in the army or navy, those 
 holding offices of trust or profit under the king 
 were admitted to sit in the House of Commons. 
 
 Under the pretence of curbing the Licentiousness 
 of the Press, were laws enacted undermining its 
 liberty. For, having once broken in upon those 
 established rules called the Constitution, the first 
 violation served as the precedent for all the rest. 
 
 As the subject of this work is particularly con- 
 cerning the Liberty of the Press, I shall adduce 
 some instances of a most glaring nature, all of 
 which have recently taken place in that country 
 and all of which were for publishing the truth : 
 one prosecution served as precedent for another, in 
 the same manner as in the acts of the Government 
 which gave rise to them. 
 
 In 1790, the printer of a new^spaper in Dublin, 
 
 under the title of the Phoenix, was prosecuted by a 
 
 reverend divine, for a false, scandalous and seditious 
 
 LIBEL, published in his paper of 10th of May, 
 
 « £ 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 same year. This was 'said in the indictment to 
 reflect injuriously upon the character and conduct 
 of the prosecutor: it accused him of having associ- 
 ated with, and directed a tumultuous mob during 
 the time of an election at Kilmainham, of having 
 worn election ribbands in his hat and breast, and 
 having uttered oaths and blasphemous expressions, 
 unbecoming the character ef a clergyman. 
 
 After counsel had been heard for the defendant, 
 on account of several interUneadons in the original 
 copy of the indictment, made after the attested copy 
 was procured, as well as to the admissability of the 
 prosecutors on evidence, together with other objec- 
 tions against the legality of the proceedings, all of 
 which were overruled by the court, the. prosecutor 
 himself was the only evidence examined. Upon 
 his cross-examination this very prosecutor, admitted 
 the TRUTH of the circumstances above stated. 
 
 The jury, after being a long time inclosed, re- 
 turned a verdict, in the following words, — " Wc 
 find that the defendant is printer and publisher, 
 not guilty of any libel." 
 
 The judge refused to accept the verdict, and 
 told them they must return a general one. Accord- 
 ingly they were sent back to the jury-room, and 
 locked up until nine o'clock next morning, when 
 the court met, and then they returned a general 
 verdict of— NOT GUILTY ! 
 
 The judge was displeased, and held his hands 
 while he thanked God it was not his verdict. One 
 of the jury told bis Lordship, " that the indictment 
 stated the libel to be false, but the prosecutor by 
 his own evidence had admitted it to be true, and 
 , that in consistence with their oaths, they could not 
 ihave found any other verdict." The judge in 
 reply to this, quoted the following opinion of Lord 
 Mansfield, viz» " The truth of a libel, is an ag- 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 gfav'ation of its guilt," or, " that a libel, is the mor^ 
 a libel for being true ;" the juror answered, " my 
 Lord, wc cannot hold that opinion." 
 
 The behaviour and sentiments of this judge, 
 was founded upon many precedents, so common 
 had they become about this time, under the British 
 government, that they attracted the notice of one 
 of the Scots judges, viz. Lord Grandenston. In a 
 life and character of the celebrated George Buchan- 
 an, published by him is the following remark, 
 
 " Though he lived and died in the bosom of 
 treason, rapine, and proscription ; Buchanan would 
 have seen, with surprise, our modern standard of 
 morality. We call ourselves a free people, and 
 yet we have submitted to hear, from the chair 
 of justice. That TRUTH is a libel, a doctrine 
 which tears up the foundations of civil society, and 
 compared to which transubstantiation, or even the 
 divine right of tyrants, is a modest and respectable 
 
 o/^rA r^ 1 Cl TY1 ■^ ^ *^ ^ ^ ^ ^ * '^ ^ '^ 
 
 '^ It is natural enough that a Barrister whose 
 life has been employed in brawling, should in the 
 end, distort his own mind out of all sense o^ equity^ 
 and when he mounts the saddle of authority, such 
 decisions may sometimes be expected ; but what 
 shall we think of those abandoned jurors, who, 
 sporting with the -trust of their fellow-citizens, 
 have crouched under this utmost insolence of juri- 
 dicial corruption."* 
 
 The foregoing is not the empty declamation of 
 a poor, discontented, and disappointed Jacobin. 
 it is the opinion of one of the Senators of the Scots 
 College of justice in Edinburgh. The remark is 
 supported by strong and undeniable facts both in 
 
 * See Lord Grandenfton's MifcelianleSj page 282, Printed for 
 Robertfon and Berry, Edinburgh 1792. 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 firitaln and Ireland. A variety of instances have 
 occurred in those countries within the last thirty 
 or forty years, of people being punished for spedkingy 
 and publishing the truth. Hence it must follow, 
 that if those are to be punished who speak or pub- 
 lish timth, than they who speak or ^wh\\%hfalsehoody 
 ought to be rewarded : but this last, is not establish- 
 ed by precedent. 
 
 I shall here relate another case of a different 
 kind in respect to the circumstances, but upon the 
 same ground of precedent, namely, publishing the 
 truth. 
 
 Sometime during the month of December 1792, 
 or January 1793, three journeymen-printers, in a 
 drunken frolic, went into Edinburgh Castle, and 
 having called for liquor, drank some foolish and 
 I'idiculous toasts : amongst others it was said they 
 had drank d — m — n to King George, and all 
 crowned tyrants. Not satisfied with doing so them- 
 selves, they endeavoured to persuade some of 
 the soldiers who were in the public room, to drink 
 the same. The conseqence of such imprudent con- 
 duct was what might have been expected in a 
 garrison. They were committed prisoners to the 
 main guard, and next day delivered up to the 
 civil power. Shortly after; they were served with 
 an indictment, charging them with being guilty of 
 an attempt to seduce his majesty's miHtary from 
 their duty and allegiance. They were tried and 
 found guilty, condemned to nine months imprison^ 
 raent, and to find bail for their future good beha- 
 viour. 
 
 The editors of a newspaper then published, cal- 
 led the Edinburgh Gazetteer, reported the proceed* 
 ings upon the above trial in their paper. In this 
 report, they also gave the opinions delivered by the 
 judges. The opinion of Lord Justice Clerk (the 
 
( 5? ) 
 
 supreme judge of the court of Justiciary) waSj 
 " That to curse Almighti/ God ivas nothing, he was 
 too far exalted above us, to take any notice of such 
 foolishness ; but to curse our gracious sovereign, 
 zvas the height of impiety.''* 
 
 For the publication of the speech containing the 
 foregoing curious sentiment. Captain William John- 
 ston the proprietor, and George Drummond the 
 Editor of the paper, were by a warrant of Lord 
 Justice Clerk, brought to the bar of the court, and 
 charged with publishing a " false, scandalous, and 
 seditious libel upon that Majesty's High Court of 
 Justiciary, tending to bring his High and Honoura- 
 ble Court into disrespect with the people." Proof 
 was offered by the council for the defendants,^ that 
 Lord Justice Clerk had said so, but the court 
 refused its admission, upon the grounds that they 
 were judges of their own privileges, and that it was 
 a contempt of court. No other alternative was left 
 to the accused, than that of submitting themselves 
 to the mercy of the court* Accordingly, on Satur- 
 day the 23d of February 1793, they received the 
 following sentence. Chaptain Johnston to pay a 
 fine of one hundred pounds sterling, three months 
 imprisonment^ and find securities to keep the peace 
 for three years, under the penalty of three hundred 
 pounds : Mr. Drummond thxee months imprison- 
 ment, and to banish himself from the kingdom. 
 
 All this xvas done ivithout the intervention of a 
 Jury. However the matter might be twisted by a 
 lawyer, the plain English of it is this ; the court 
 were the agrieved parties, and the sole judges in 
 
 * I am obliged at this diftance of time, to quote from memory, al- 
 though I have in ray pofleQion a file of that paper, it is not a complete 
 one, and I want in particular, the one which contains this trial. The 
 accuracy of the fentiment, however, can he fubftantiated by numbers 
 of people from Edinburgh; as well as otb.er parts of Scotland, 
 
( 3§ ) 
 
 their ow7i causer. Now, they certainly knew whefe 
 er the Lord Justice Clerk had, or had not spokerl 
 these words. If he did not, then the editor and 
 •printer, ought either to have apologised for their 
 mistake, or if wilfully misrepresented, they deserv- 
 ed punishment. If they were not spoken, then the 
 court had a fair opportunity of asserting their dig- 
 nity, and of clearing the character of their presiding 
 judge : if true, it was but justice they should have 
 publicity, as the Lord Justice Clerk is a man re- 
 markable for railing at the Atheism and Infidelity 
 of the French ! With what propriety let the reader 
 judge. ^ 
 
 Having seen some of the effects of precedent un- 
 der the British government, let us now turn our 
 attention to France, even to republican and rege- 
 nerated France ; we shall find that even there, 
 violation of the constitution after violation has taken 
 place, and the nefarious doctrine of precedent has 
 shed its baleful influencCi 
 
 It is true, I am not in possession of a sufficient 
 number of facts, to be able to point out the origin 
 of these violations of their Constitution, which 
 serv^ed as a precedent for those which followed. 
 Enough I however know, to point out their incon- 
 sistency with the Directorial Constitution. As for 
 the Constitution of Dictator Buonaparte, it is out 
 of the question ; a Constitution promulgated by the 
 sound of martial music, and established at the points 
 of three or four hundred thousand bayonets, is not 
 of that kind which I am now investigating. 
 
 The Freedom of Speech, and Liberty of the 
 Press, was guarantee'd to the people of France 
 under their late Constitution. Short however was 
 the pejjiod of the existance of this Liberty of the 
 Press. It soon was no where to be found, unless 
 in the Constitution itself. Newspapers, those ter- 
 
( 3^ J 
 
 roTS to tyrants, soon experienced the vengeance of 
 the Directory : In this respect they have been equally 
 severe and unjustifiable as the old government of 
 France, or the present government of Britain. The 
 general charges exhibited against this species of 
 publications have been, that they advocated the 
 cause of Royalty. I rather believe however, that 
 the real truth of the matter was, that they investi- 
 gated the actions of the Directory with a greater 
 degree of freedom, than they wished to submit unto, 
 and a more minute scrutiny, than their actions would 
 bear. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that 
 they did advocate the cause of royalty, it would be 
 no justifiable reason for interfering with them. If 
 republicanism be decidedly preferable to monarchy, 
 what can it have to fear, if administered with justice, 
 and agreeably to the Constitution ? If the people are 
 republicans from a preference to this form of go- 
 vernment, founded upon a conviction of its superior 
 justice and advantages, what has republicanism in 
 this case to fear, from the friends of monarchy.? If 
 on the contrary, their be evils in republicanism, they 
 ought to be known; and the sooner they are known 
 the better : But if royalty has the advantage over 
 republicanism, then that ought also to be known. 
 -Let public opinion deside between the two opposite 
 principles. If allowed the free and unconstrained 
 exercise of this principle it will decide. In either 
 case, if the government interfere, it is unjust, and 
 the probability is, it will give an undue influence. 
 If the people are Tepublicans from choice, or royal- 
 ists from the same, it is a most detestible species of 
 tyranny to compel them to be in appearance what 
 they are not in sentiment. It is encouraging both 
 national and individual hypocrisy. Such conduct 
 saps the foundations of morality, injures the interests 
 x)f society, and holds up sincerity as the worst pf 
 
, ( 40 ) 
 
 crimes. No cliaracter can be more base than the 
 hypocrite, unless it be that Government which en- 
 genders it, by preventing the free and unconstrained 
 operation of opinion. The real language of such 
 governments, however they may disguise the mat- 
 ter, is this : " I will have recourse to the only means 
 that are congenial to guilty I will compel you to be 
 silent y'"^ 
 
 The violation of the Liberty of the Press, if it 
 was nor the.//>^/, nevertheless served as a precedent 
 for others. The banishment of a number of both 
 the Councils^ and even two of the Directory, by the 
 remaining three^ was a daring infringement upon 
 the inviolability of the national representatives. 
 No crimes were ever legally proved against them, 
 because they were never brought to trial. 
 
 One precedent always brings on another. Ac- 
 cordingly the Directory not only rejected many of 
 the newly elected representatives, but even pre-^ 
 scribed those they should elect. This they justified 
 upon the same pretended grounds as their former 
 violations, viz. to check royalisviy terrorism^ and 
 anti-revolutionism. They made use of those bugbear 
 words to create alarm, and justify their conduct, in 
 the same way as the British Government. Whoever 
 dares in Britain to question the propriety of the 
 ministerial proceedings, is immediately branded by 
 way of reproach with being a repidylican and leveller. 
 In France, such characters are called royalists, or 
 anti-revolutionists. Even in this country y every one 
 who for some years back have dissented in opinion 
 from those administering the Government, have 
 been railed at as disorganixerSy jacobinSy anti-fede- 
 ralists and democrats y as if there were any difFer-r 
 
 * Godwin, 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 cnce between the terms democrat,*^ and repiihUcan$ 
 or, that all or any of the democratic party wished 
 an annihilation of the Federal Government. While 
 the opposite party are equally lavish in their terms of 
 Tory and Aristocrat. With respect to this coun- 
 try, I shdl beg leave to observe, that such a mode* 
 of argumentation may irritate^ bnt never can con- 
 vince. Whenever an individual substitutes instead 
 of argument, names which he conceives to be t^rms 
 of reproach; it is a fair and justifiable conclusion, 
 that such conduct betrays the weakness of their 
 judgment, if not of the cause they wish to support. 
 But to return to the subject. 
 
 Sufficient instances have been adduced to shew 
 the impropriety of a people acquiescing in any vio- 
 lation of their Constitution, from the dangerous na- 
 ture oi precedent. We al§o see by all and every one 
 of the preceding instances, that every violation was 
 intended to suppress the free exercise, or expressioa 
 of the public will. The prosecutions founded upon 
 those in Britain, and the prohibitions in France^ 
 were meant to destroy the Liberty of the Press. In 
 both, they were contrary to the rules of the Consti- 
 tution, or that which is so called. 
 
 Perhaps it may be argued, that in the progress of 
 the administration of a Government, many unfore^ 
 seen circumstances may occur, which being either 
 unprovided for by the Coshtitution, or perhaps of a 
 
 * In proof of this, fee the following extracts from Dr. Samuel John* 
 fon's Dictionary, 8vo. edition. 
 
 Democracy. One of the three forms of government; that ia 
 which the fovereign power is lodged in the body of the people. 
 
 Democratical. (From democracy,) pertaining to a popular go- 
 vernment, popular. 
 
 Republican. (From republic,) placing the government in the 
 people. 
 
 Republican. One who thinks a commonwealth withoyt n?onar* 
 /ehy the beft government. 
 
 F 
 
f <2 ) 
 
 nature that requires a direct violation of that instro- 
 ment; otherwise, the happiness and security of the 
 people must suffer: therefore, a government so situ- 
 ated, may, w^ith justice, act contrary to the Consti- 
 tution. Admitting all this to be true, what does it 
 amount to? That the Constitution is defeC-jve, and 
 therefore requires amendment. For this, the Con- 
 stitution of the United States has prescribed a parti- 
 cular and specified mode. Therefore, as the peo- 
 ple cannot enact laws, except through the medium 
 of their Representatives ; so neither can the govern- 
 ment alter that Constitution which the people have 
 prescribed as a rule of action to those administering 
 that government. It was observed by Lord Trea- 
 surer Burleigh, " That England never could be ruin- 
 ed but by a Farlimnenir The same thing cannot 
 be said of the United States, They cannot be Tuin- 
 ed by a Congress, so long as their Constitution is 
 preserved inviolate, and so long as the alterations 
 which time and circumstances may shew to be ne- 
 cessary, are made in a Constitutional manner. No 
 other kind of innovation ought ever to be allowed ; 
 for if ever it is done, in that case the power delegat- 
 ed would be absurd, and a pretended right exercisr- 
 ed, vv^hich the government never received. 
 
 CHAP. VT 
 
 ExamiJiation continued. — Justice equally binding up- 
 on Nations as upon individuals. — Whether ivhat is 
 morally wrong can ever be politically right exam- 
 ined,, — Trial of Warren Hastings, — Slavery and. 
 the Slave Trade. — Established Religions. 
 
 f ET us now examine the third proposition : viz. 
 
 Either the administrators of government are bound 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 % the rules of eternal justice, in their public, as xcel 
 as private capacities^ or they are not. 
 
 As the administrators of a government, are only a 
 number of individuals appointed for the particular 
 purpose of managing the public concerns of a com- 
 munity; so it follows of course, that the same mo- 
 ral obligations so far from being relaxed, really be- 
 come stronger than before ; and, that for this 
 reason. It is not only necessary that they conduct 
 the affairs of government according to justice; but 
 they ought also by their conduct in private life, to 
 set an example of morality to the people. As every 
 man on earth, is, or ought to be, bound by that 
 noblest of all precepts, — " To do unto others, what- 
 soever they would wnsh others should do unto them ;** 
 so this precept is of equal obligation in a natienaU as 
 in an individual sense. 
 
 It is indeed astonishing that ever this principle 
 should have been disputed, but it is nevertheless 
 true, that such has been the fact, A doctrine in 
 direct opposition to it, has been frequently held by 
 governments. A maxim has been by them promul- 
 gated, ''Tliat what is Morally wrong, may often 
 t)eFoLiTicALLY right** On the great question 
 concerning the abolition of the Slave trade, in the 
 British Parliament, this principle was insisted upon, 
 and defended, in the most unlimited sense. In a 
 history of the trial of Warren Hastings, published 
 in London, in 1796; and, where the author in a pre- 
 face to the work, calls the late Governor General 
 of Bengal, " A good man struggling with adversity;'* 
 the above maxim is avowed, and defended in these 
 words: — " It has been justly observed, on the sub- 
 ject of legislation, that what is metaphisically tru€y 
 may be in that very proportion, politically false *^ 
 What this author means by metaphisical truth, is 
 abstract truth. Now nothing can be abstractedly 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 true^ unless it will also be so through all its grades 
 and ramifications. If it will not bear this trial, then 
 it cannot be a truth. Consequently, as there can be 
 but one kind of truth, therefore this author could 
 mean nothing else than simple truth, and to say that 
 a thing is true in one instance, and false in another, 
 may be very good sophistry, but it is certainly y^ry 
 bad logic. 
 
 The same author afterwards says, ** He (Warren 
 Hastings) maintained the British Dominions in In- 
 dia, by means exactly of the same kind with those 
 that acquired them, by tvhich alone it zvas possible to 
 maintain them'^ 
 
 It may be proper to observe, that it was by sii-- 
 perior force, murder, robbe?y^ zxidiplujider, that the 
 British Dominions in Asia were acquired; therefore, 
 according to this author, they certainly could not be 
 maintained by any other means than superior force, 
 murder, robbery, and plunder: Yet this man, be- 
 cause he has undergone a trial for these three last 
 mentioned crimes, is styled " A good man struggling 
 zvith adversity r To be sure, if w^hat is morally 
 wrong, be politically right; and if he committed 
 these actions, he was what the historian of the trial 
 calls him. 
 
 While I am writing this article, a news-paper lays 
 before me, containing a speech of Mr. Sherridan, 
 delivered in the House of Commons, on the 1st Dec. 
 18(X); where the principle now under cosnideration, 
 is unequivocally contended for. 
 
 Speaking of the dispute with Denmark, and al- 
 luding to the probability of a northern coalition in 
 defence of the rights of neutrals, he says; 
 
 " Without giving any opinion upon that dispute, 
 without saying whether any guarantee could be 
 given with respect to ships under convoy of neutral 
 powers, I have no hesitation in stating, that if the 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 J^rivilege we contend for, be that under which our 
 naval greatness has grown, which is at once the 
 boast, the glory, and the security of England ; 
 which has been recognized in all treaties, which 
 is part of the maritime law of Europe : if I repeat, 
 it be that privilege, I have no hesitation in saying, 
 that it is the charter of our existence, the banner 
 under which we should rally, it is the flag which 
 imitating the example of our gallant seamen, we 
 should nail to the mast of the nation, and go down 
 with the vessel rather than strike it." 
 
 All this is very fine to be sure, excellent declama- 
 tion ; but what is the argument contained in it? 
 it is this nefarious principle now under examination, 
 a public avowal of the maxim " that what is 
 morally zvrong, may be politicalhj right.'" It is 
 saying, " I care not about the justice or injustice of 
 our ships of war stopping, searching, or seizing 
 neutrals, it has been to our advantage, and sooner 
 than give it up, we will sacrifice the last man in 
 the nation." It is the same argument that a 
 high way robber would make use of, for continuing 
 his depredations. But, as Bishop Taylor says ; " in 
 this world men thrive by villainy, and lying and 
 deceiving is accounted just, and to be rick is to be 
 zoise, and tyranny is honourable. And though little 
 thefts, and petty mischiefs are interrupted by the 
 laws, yet if a mischief become public and great, 
 acted by Princes, and effected by armies and robbe- 
 ries be done by ivhole fleets, it is virtue, and it is 
 glory r 
 
 It IS not however in the island of Britain that thi^ 
 maxim of moral evil being political virtue has been 
 acted upon and avowed.. The negro slavery of 
 the United States is defended upon the same 
 grounds. It is for those who bawl about liberty 
 and equality at a democratic meeting, and then ^o 
 
( 46 ) • ^ 
 
 home and flog their ^ Slaves, to reconcile the one 
 with the other. Justice knows no distinction 
 of colour, knows of no description of men who 
 ought 'to be deprived of thi^ir natural rights. Law 
 and custom^ never can sancticn injustice; on the 
 contrary it makes the evil more pernicious. " Of 
 all injustice, that, is the greater w^hich goes under 
 the name of /rt'r^J*^* Slavery is not only unjustifi- 
 able both in a national and individual point of view, 
 but like every other violation is injurious to the 
 community where it exists. To prove this would 
 be no difficult t^sk ; but it is not necessary here 
 to insist upon it. All the design of noticing it 
 here, is to shew, that both the government and in- 
 dividuals of a nation are bound by the rules of jus- 
 tite, and that if any principle or practice is sanc- 
 tioned by them, contrary to this, it injures the first 
 interest of society. . 
 
 That what is morally wrong may be politically right, 
 is so very absurd to an ingenuous mind, that such 
 must behold it with astonishment and indignation. 
 It has nevertheless been so often adduced by go- 
 vernments as a defence for the most unjustifiable 
 acts of power, that it cannqt be too much reproba- 
 ted. Of this kind are all laws tending to direct 
 public opinion, whether in politics or religion. All 
 established religions fenced round with penal laws, 
 are most notoriously unjust. How is it possible for 
 every individual in a nation, to be of one particular 
 set of religious opinions ? no man can believe any 
 opinion, or system of opinions, except according to 
 the force with which the evidence operates upon 
 his mind. The believers in every religion upon the 
 face of the earth, assert theiYs to be the only true 
 one. How then dare governments establish any 
 
 * L*Enrange. 
 
i 47 ) 
 
 one in particular ? wherever established religions 
 exist, those who a7'e not, or do not pretend to be 
 of the national faith, are deprived of some of their 
 political rights, as if difference in opinion were a 
 crime. Is this acting according to the rules of 
 justice ? certainly not. 
 
 The French government when they interfered in 
 religious opinions by abolishing the observation of » 
 Sunday, were equally wrong, with those who en- 
 force its observance. If I observe Sunday, I ought 
 to observe it from a motive of religious obligation 
 and propriety, not because the laws of man have 
 prescribed it. If I am convinced that it is my duty, 
 a duty which I owe to God, to observe that day; 
 no government can have a right to prohibit me 
 from doing so. As I can have no right to interfere 
 with my neighbours opinions in any other way than 
 by argument and persuasion, so neither can govern- 
 ment in justice do so with the people. The govern- 
 ors, and the governed are equally bound by the 
 rules of eternal justice ; both are equally guilty if 
 they violate them. If there is to be one standard of 
 morality for the government, and another for the 
 people, then all distinction between virtue and vice 
 is at an end. Whatever in this case was a vice in 
 an individual, might, by a little government logic, 
 be- proved to be a virtue. Miserable must be the 
 people who acquiesce in this destruction of moral 
 principle; but more miserable still, those who ad- 
 mire it. The same thing may be said of such, as 
 Lord Shaftsbury said of those who believed in di- 
 vine right. " They who live under a tyranny, and 
 have learned to admire its power, are as much de- 
 bauched in their religion^ as in their morals'- 
 
( ^^ ). 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Last proposition examined, — Venice ajid Holland^ 
 their governments originaliy Democratic. — Deduc- 
 tions from the foregoing reasonings, 
 
 |ET us now examine the fourth and last propo- 
 sition. Governments are either the Servants of the 
 People, or they are their Masters. 
 
 The deductions and reasoning from this, comes 
 so nearly to those drawn from the first proposition, 
 that it might be deemed superfluous to have stated it, 
 were it not fashionable among certain politicians, to 
 deny the^first part of it, and to treat it with ridicule. 
 The truth however, is, there is no medium between 
 the two opposite extremes. There is no intermedi- 
 ate title by which the administrators of a govern- 
 ment can be distinguished. For, as government 
 can originate but in two ways, either by usurpation 
 or delegation, so of course, the members thereof 
 must be masters of the people's liberties, or sei^- 
 vants of the people's will. In the United States the 
 last is most certainly the case. Here the officers of 
 government are elected either mediately or immedi- 
 ately by the people, from the President even to the 
 Constable. They hold their offices for specified 
 times, and receive stated salaries in compensation 
 for their services. Certain rules are prescribed to 
 them for their direction , which rules, if violated, 
 have prescribed a mode of punishment, and there- 
 by have unequivocally fixed the stamp oi servant 
 upon them. Can any man of common sense, then 
 pretend to say, that the government is not the crea* 
 ture of the people's zvill; that the administrators of it 
 are not the people's servants } Whenever they cease 
 to be so, they become masters and tyrants, and tho 
 
■( « ) 
 
 rights and liberties of the pieople cease to exist. It 
 is therefore the duty of the people of these states, 
 as well as their interest, to watch with the most 
 vigilant care, the actions of their public servants. 
 Jealousy is the soul of republicanism. Implicit 
 confidence is the parent of tyranny. Though it has 
 often been asserted, that ingratitude is the crime' of 
 republics ; yet its opposite, gratitude, joined with 
 confidence, has been the most destructive to their 
 interests. Some particular individual of eminent 
 talents, from a combination of fortuitous circum- 
 stances, had it in his power to render essential ser- 
 vice to his country. His countrymen think they 
 cannot be over grateful ; they confer power upon 
 liim, and they place implicit confidence in his talents 
 and administration. Power has an inevitable ten- 
 dency to corrupt the heart, or at least to blind the 
 understanding of the generality of men. He that 
 was before, a hero and a patriot, becomes a tyrant 
 over those he had formerly benefited. Vigilance 
 then becomes the first duty of every republican. 
 Almost numberless are the instances that could be 
 adduced to shew the propriety of this maxim ; I 
 shall only adduce two : that of Venice, and Hol- 
 land. There we shall behold the servants of the 
 people become their masters, by the means of 
 confidence and gratitude. 
 
 The Venetians first adopted a pure democracy. 
 They chose from the body of the people, a tribune for 
 each island ; and this election took place annually. 
 These tribunes regulated the private concerns of the 
 people ; while the public business was transacted by a 
 general assembly. This government existed for up- 
 wards of two hundred years. At length the tribunes 
 endeavoured to exercise despotic power, each in his 
 own island. Instead of changing the men as they 
 ought to have done, thev changed the form and 
 
 G 
 
C ^0 } 
 
 Trature of the Government. At the instigation of the 
 Patriarch of Grado, they elected a man universally 
 •beloved, to.be Duke of Venice ; and to this office 
 they attached an almost unlimited power. 
 
 Thus fell the democracy of Venice. " A plan,, 
 says M. De La Croix, which may rank in point of 
 wisdom with the most perfect which we find in 
 antiquity; and while the islanders had the good 
 sense to adhere to it they wxre happy and peacea- 
 ble." They did not remain so long,, under the ducal 
 Government.. Paul Luke Anafeste, the first Duke,, 
 approved himself worthy of their choice. Exten- 
 sive power is dangerous to be entrusted in a single- 
 individual. This was verified in Urso their third" 
 Duke, or Doge. After having been triumphant 
 over the Lombards, he became proud of his success ;; 
 ruled with severity and injustice ; and at last fell as 
 sacrifice to the vengeance of an injured people. 
 In other words, he forgot he was a servant, and inr. 
 attempting, to become a mastery he was put to deatb 
 in his palace. 
 
 An annually elected chief,, under the title of 
 " Master of the military Jorces'' next was agreed* 
 upon ; but John Fabricatio, the fifth who held fhat 
 office, had his eyes put out for his attrociou& 
 Gonduct.- 
 
 Again the Venetians resorted to a perpetual chiefs 
 and again they were deceived. Theodat, this fourth 
 Doge had his eyes put out,, at the instigation of a 
 demagogue named Galla. Brondelo who succeeded 
 him, underwent the same barbarous treatment, one- 
 year after, and was besides sent into exile. 
 
 At length two tribunes were associated with* the 
 Doge, without whose concurrence he was to da 
 nothing. To this wholesome restraint Mongario,,. 
 the sixteenth Doge w^ould not submit; and he alsoj^ 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 who wanted to be master alone, Avas involved in 
 •perpetual darkness. i 
 
 The same form of Government still continued; 
 ■and the Doge was still elected for life. Doge Mau- 
 rice after he had governed with propriety for upwards 
 of twenty years, proposed to have his son- John 
 associated with him in the Government. Chatitude 
 induced the Venetians to comply, and a dangerous 
 precedtnt was thus introduced. John claimed th<5 
 •same privilege for his son ; and at last for their crimes 
 Ihey were both expelled from their power and theiif 
 country. 
 
 The limits of this publication will t^ot permit me 
 to give even an abridged detail of all the various 
 revolutions in the Venetian state, Let us therefore 
 come to -that period of their history, when they were 
 conquered by the French republic. By contrasting 
 the nature of their then Government, with what it 
 was in the origin of the republic, an awful, but 
 convincing lesson will be .presented to our view. 
 
 I shall just premise, that for a very long period, 
 xifter the institution of the office of Doge, the people 
 still retained their republican character, and were 
 acknowledged the source of sovereignty. Every 
 alteration of the form, -and every revol'^tion in the 
 Government served only to curtail the rights of the 
 people ; until at last an hereditary body of nobility 
 arose, who, having been originally servants of the 
 people, deprived that people of every vestige of 
 liberty. Thirteen hundred nobles retained the whole 
 power of the people. From among those, were 
 elected by themselves, the Senate, the College (or 
 Supreme Council of State) the Procurators of St» 
 Mark, the Council of ten, and the Inquisitors of 
 State. 
 
 Thus were the people governed by a multitude of 
 tyrants. " Under one despot," says Voltaire, ** I 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 need only stand up against a wall when I sec him 
 coming by, or prostrate myself, or knock my fore- 
 head against the ground, according to the custom of 
 the country; but under a body of perhaps a hundred 
 despots, I may be obliged to repeat this ceremony 
 a hundred times a day, which is not a little trouble- 
 some to those who are not very nimble." 
 
 The people under this perfection of aristocracy 
 were absolute slaves. The Freedom of Speech was 
 unknown; as for the Press, that was totally prohi- 
 bited. The Government was a complicated heap 
 of absurdities and oppression ; but, of all the 
 engines of oppression, that of the inquisitors of 
 state was the most detestable. " The authority of 
 those inquisitors is so much the more redoubtable, 
 as the executions which follow their sentences are 
 always performed in prison. Sometimes the criminal 
 is interred there, and sometimes the body is exposed 
 between the columns of Saint Mark, with a writ- 
 ten lable, containing but very vague words, such as, 
 for a serious crime against the state '^"^ 
 
 The same author observes concerning this tremen- 
 dous engine of cruelty ; — '^ These inquisitors have 
 the key of the hollow trunks of the palace of the 
 Doge, into wdiich can be thrown, through the mouths 
 of the lions, which serve as openings, billets to 
 reveal secrets interesting to the republic. 
 
 " Who can consider, without trembling, a recital 
 of such secret vengeance, of such mysterious acts of 
 cruelty } Wherefore do they form the basis of its 
 Government? It is because that Government is itself 
 founded on injustice ! It has been established as I 
 have shewn, without the consent of the people ; 
 and the authority now enjoyed by the nobles, exclu- 
 
 * M. De La Croix's Review of Constiiutions. 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 sively, is an usurpation on the multitude, and on the 
 chief of the republic." 
 
 Contrast this with the quotation at the beginning 
 of this article, from the same author. Contemplate 
 what must have been the situation of the Venetians 
 for the first two hundred years of their existence, 
 under their simple democracy, with that under the 
 aristocracy. Survey the various revolutions and 
 changes which their Government underwent 
 before their public servants became their haugh- 
 ty masters; their despotic lords. A Govern* 
 ment where the people were of no more account, 
 in a political view, than " the dust of the balance," 
 or "the chaff before the wind." Examine the 
 latent causes of so melancholy a change. Care- 
 lessness, ignorance, and worse than all; unlimited 
 confidence. 
 
 If these things are attended to, we can hardly 
 i^uppose, that the people have made a change for 
 the worse. Let the Austrian Government rule as 
 they please, it is utterly impossible that the people 
 can be more wretched, or enjoy less liberty than 
 under their own aristocracy. " This however is not 
 meant as any justification of the French Govern- 
 ment, for delivering them up to the power of the 
 German Emperor. That is assuredly a detestable 
 policy, which can, on any pretence whatever, make 
 a transfer of a whole people, as if they were so many 
 oxen or hogs. It was the business, nay the duty of 
 the French, either to leave them the sole choice of a 
 new form of Government, or let them alone. The 
 very utmost they had any right to do, even as con- 
 querors, was to take such precautionary measures, 
 as to prevent them renewing hostilities. 
 . Much has been said, by a certain party in this 
 country about the fate of Venice. Often .have 
 the people been called upon to avoid, and to 
 
.( 54 ) 
 
 look With horror on the degraded fate of that mis* 
 named republic. The mode of conduct is in their 
 own power. Let them remember^ that they are the 
 sovereign; that their magistrates and legislators are^ 
 their servants ; that it those individuals act wrong, 
 to change the men, but not the constitution. Let 
 them also be virtuous, and remember that argu- 
 ments founded upon justice and truth, are the surest 
 and best weapons which can be wielded against 
 encroachments upon their liberties. Let the Press 
 be Free, and the citizens of these states need not fear 
 the despotism of aristocracy, nor the degraded fate 
 of Venice. 
 
 Let us now turn our attention to Holland ; for that 
 loo had has its lamentations poured forth, for the 
 overthrow of its late Government. 
 
 The revolt of the Llollanders from the Spanish 
 Government, about the middle of the sixteenth 
 century, is sufficiently known. The gratitude to the 
 house of Orange, for the essential services rendered 
 to the republic, during its revolutionary war is also 
 known. This very republican gratitude, added to 
 the ambition of the succeeding princes of that 
 family, annihilated every thin^ of freedom but the 
 name. The encroachments of sovereign authority, 
 and of aristocratic power, were long exerted before 
 they attained their ends. "Ultimately, however, they 
 proved successful over democracy ; and a hereditary 
 chief magistrate was at length seated on the Stadt- 
 holderen throne. He who was originally the first 
 servant of the people, became the king and the 
 tyrant of the country. Various efforts wxre made 
 to overthrow this ill timed concession; but foreign 
 troops, and foreign generals, always in the pay of the 
 Stadtholder prevented it. When in the year 1785,v 
 they had nearly accomplished their liberty; the 
 country w^as over-run by a foreign force, under the 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 bravado Duke of Brunswick, of proclamation 
 memory. Then the chains were re-rlvited; and it 
 was not until the campaign of 1795-6, that the 
 Hollanders regained their freedom. 
 
 Whether they are now better, or worse, is not for 
 me to say; nor will it in either case affect my argu- 
 ment. The Government was originally democratic, 
 and the officers of the Government were the servants 
 of the people. This Government became aristo- 
 cratic, and its officers became the masters of that 
 people. . 
 
 From what has been said upon the propositions 
 stated in chapter 4th, it appears, 1st. That the go- 
 vernment of the United States being a delegation 
 from the people ;. no power over the operations of the 
 mind, or controul of public opinion could be dele- 
 gated to them. Were such a thing possible, it would 
 be a ridiculous absurdity. As well might I say un- 
 to my neighbour, " I will confer Almighty power 
 upon you; you shall guide and direct all the opera- 
 tions of my mind, and every thought shall be regu- 
 lated as you please.'* 
 
 2d. We have seen that governments are bound, 
 or at least pretend to be regulated by Constitutions ; 
 and that the United States have a legitimate and au- 
 thentic instrument which bears that name. The 
 dangerous nature of precedent has been pointed out, 
 and the encroachments upon natural rights under the 
 British government have been traced to this source. 
 Its violation of moral principle, has also been notic- 
 ed, particularly in the British doctrine of libel ; 
 where truth is not only punished as a crime, but it is 
 even daringly asserted that the libel is aggravated by 
 being true. The violation of the Directorial Consti- 
 tution of France has been exposed. It has been 
 shewn, that these oppressions also, went upon the 
 principle of government having a right to direct the 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 public opinion; the absurdity and injustice of which^ 
 I hope is also evident. 
 
 3d. We have also found, that justice being univer- 
 sal, and immutable, must be of equal obligation up- 
 on the governors, as upon the governed. Conse- 
 quently, moral evil, never can be political good. 
 
 4th. It has been shewn, that the legal governors 
 or magistrates of a country, are the people's ser- 
 vants, and that it is only by usurpation they can ever 
 become masters. The governments of Venice and 
 Holland, have been cited as warning examples to 
 the citizens of the United States, to guard with un- 
 ceasing vigilance the actions of their public servants; 
 lest as in those countries, the servants should be- 
 come masters. 
 
 The first deduction which offers itself from those 
 reasonings is, that in no case whatever, can govern- 
 ment have a right to interfere in the direction of 
 public opinion. The next deduction is, that if go- 
 vernment does interfere, it saps the foundations of 
 morality. And lastly, that it is the interest, as well 
 as duty of the people to prevent, or check such at- 
 tempts in the government ; otherwise their liberty, 
 their happiness; nay, all that they hold dear to them 
 as rational beings, is in danger of being wrested 
 from them. 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Violent revolutions to be dreaded. — Free discussion 
 favorable to virtue, and the only real preservative 
 against them, — Fictitious Signatures pernicious. — 
 Spies and informers, — Multiplication of oaths dan- 
 gerous to morality, — Example in illustration, 
 
 T- .) 
 HE enormities committed during the revolu- 
 tionary fervour of the French, have been loudly 
 reprobated, by the enemies of all reformation ; and 
 they have even been deplored by the friends to the 
 liberties of mankind. Actions have certainly taken 
 place, which cannot upon any principle of justice 
 be defended. No doubt also, but many of those 
 occurrences have been exaggerated. It is not a 
 little remarkable, that all who have written con- 
 cerning the massacres and executions of that nation, 
 seem to have forgotten the cause from which they 
 briginated ; or, if they did not, they have used every 
 artifice to conceal it. 
 
 Far be it from me to take the opposite ^extreme ; 
 and to attempt a defence of that which is indefen- 
 sible. It ought however to be remembered ; that 
 " oppression makes a wise vian mad.'* If it some- 
 times has this effect upon an individual, it may also 
 operate upon any given number of the human 
 species. 
 
 ■ At all events, violent revolutions are to be dreaded. 
 When once the usual bonds of human society are 
 broken, bad men are always in readiness to exercise 
 their pernicious talents. It is true, that anarchy 
 cannot long "subsist, as it carries the seeds of its 
 immediate destruction along with it; but the effects 
 may long be felt, after the cause has ceased to exist. 
 Violent revolutions are' like the destructive tornado, 
 
 II 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 which alike overturns the cottage and the palace; 
 which overwhelms all within its vortex in indiscri- 
 minate dismay and destruction. If such be their 
 nature and tendency; how^ ought they to be guarded 
 against ? 
 
 One of the most prominent forerunners of violent 
 revolution, is a total suppression of the Liberty of 
 Speech and Press; the Governmenfusurping the sole 
 direction of public opinion. This is dangerous in 
 every kind of Government ; but more preposterous, 
 as well as more dangerous in a republican country, 
 than in any other. If in a democratic republic, the 
 people are prevented from a free investigation of the 
 actions of their public servants, it will inevitably be 
 productive of the following effects. 
 
 Either it will drive the people into immediate acts 
 of violence against the Government; or, if they 
 silently submit, it w ill ultimately deprive the people 
 of that free energy of thought, w^ord, and action, 
 which the cousciousness of liberty and independence 
 never fail to inspire. The Government will then 
 cease to direct the public concerns of free men; and 
 they will rule over a nation of degraded slaves. 
 Both of these events ought to be equally dreaded by 
 the good politician ; because both, in the end, must 
 terminate in violent and tumultuous revolution. 
 
 Though it be true, as has been observed by Lock, 
 that< — ^^ There remains still inherent in the people, a 
 supreme power to remove or alter the legislature, 
 when they find the legislative act contrary to the 
 trust reposed in them; for, when such trust is 
 abused, it is thereby forfeited, and devolves to those 
 who give it;" I say, though this be true, the prin- 
 ciple is always to be applied w^ith caution. If this 
 advice is due to the people; another piece of advice 
 is also due to the Government; that is, /o avoid 
 evi'ry thing ivhich may occasion the necessity of its 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 being resorted to. The Freedom of Speech and 
 Press ought in particular to remain inviolate and 
 sacred. The language of Government should be, 
 '* Observe my conduct; you do well. Report it as 
 widely as possible, provided you report it fairly ; you 
 are entitled to commendation. But the heart of 
 man unavoidably revolts against the attempt to cor- 
 rect my error by the infliction of violence."* 
 
 Here however I shall beg leave to diifer in one 
 point from this respectable author. He says, 
 "Report it as widely as possible, provided you 
 report itfairtyT Now a thing may be reported 
 which is not really true^ and yet it may h^ fairlij 
 reported, from the information the person has re- 
 ceived; therefore report it as you believe it to be. 
 No one can have a right to report a falsehood, but 
 he may be himself deceived, by believing his infor- 
 mation to be true. If he never reports this, he 
 continues in error; but by giving it publicity, he 
 stands the chance of being undeceived. 
 
 A free promulgation of facts and opinions, would 
 soon be perceived to be the strongest preservative 
 against violent revolutions. It would be doubly 
 advantageous to the interests of a Republican Go- 
 vernment. That Government which the people 
 have chosen, may fairly be supposed the constant 
 object of their solicitude and care. It can hardly 
 be imagined, that the people will fail in a due 
 respect for the administrators of their own Govern- 
 ment, so long as they act with propriety, justice, 
 and according to the Constitution. The members 
 of such a Government are only elected for a parti- 
 cular period. They should then avoid all measures 
 of a seliish or temporizing nature. If such laws be 
 made to shield tliemselves from animadversion, they 
 
 * Godwin. 
 
{ 60 ) 
 
 ought to recollect, that parties and power may change 
 hands. In this case, they might repent the having 
 sanctioned Jaws restricting the Freedom of Speech, 
 and Press. Again, do the members of a Repub' 
 ]ican Government wish to have the spontaneous 
 approbation of their fellow^ citizens, or do they wnsh 
 to hear the sycophantic adulation of slaves ? If the 
 first be their w^ish, they will not restrict the free 
 expression of the public sentiment. If the last be 
 what they are desirous of; it may indeed flatter the 
 vanity of ignorant tyrants ; but it ought to be remem- 
 bered — that they preclude themselves from knowing 
 their friends from their enemies. I certainly should 
 not have told Dionysius the tyrant, that I thought^ 
 him a detestable monster, because it is probable I 
 should have lost my life. My opinion however must 
 have been unchanged. 
 
 The disinterested legislator will always be friendly 
 to the cause of virtue. He will know, that virtue 
 and republicanism must rise or fall together. No 
 people ever were ripe for despotism, until they were 
 completely corrupted. It was the case with Greece, 
 when the Romans overpowered it. It was the case 
 with the Romans, when Caesar became their master. 
 The real friends of the Government of the United 
 States, will then do every, thing in their power to 
 promote and encourage virtue among the people. 
 This, and this alone, will give the Government 
 stability; and prevent the dread, or necessity of 
 violent revolution; that is, if the Government are 
 also virtuous. 
 
 If this principle be acknowledged, how cautious 
 ought Governments to be in enacting laws which 
 may in their operation tend to destroy virtue among 
 the people } Whatever in the smallest degree, tends 
 to the injury of morality, should both by individuals 
 and Governments be avoided. Hence any thing 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 A^hich may occasion the multiplication of fictitious 
 signatures, oaths or tests ^ spies ox informers, pw^~it 
 to be guarded against with the most studious care. 
 
 Fictitious signatures are of no importance when 
 attached to any other^ kind of publications, thart- 
 those where public or private individuals are charged: 
 with improprieties. They are however totally owing, 
 to the checks which have been from time to time 
 imposed upon the free expression of public opinion* 
 Consequently they engender pusilanimity, in sincerity* 
 and anonimous assassiqation of character. Sedition- 
 laws will aiw^ays increase this evil. Teach men tb'e^ 
 necessity of only speaking truth. Shew them that 
 they may do it without fear, and thi;s evil so fre- 
 quently, and sometimes justly complained of, will 
 cease to exist. If the malicious slanderer still 
 retreat behind this mysterious veil, let his publica- 
 tions be treated with that contempt they so justly 
 deserve. Contemptuous silence will soon impress 
 him sufficiently wdth an idea of his own littleness.. 
 On the contrary, the man who has nothing to relate- 
 but what he believes to be truth ; why should he 
 conceal his name? He may be mistaken, he may be 
 misinformed, he may have drawn erronious con- 
 clusions^ if he has, he may be set rights and-like 
 an honest man, let him acknowledge his error., ^ 
 
 In order to carry sedition law^s fully into effect, 
 spies and informers must be made use of ; nay, they 
 must be encouraged. Wherever such wretches 
 exist, and where they are employed by the hopes of 
 pecuniary reward, liberty cannot live. The confi- 
 dence of friendship, the inviolability of domestic 
 conversation, and the unguarded effusions ot the 
 moments of hilarity ; all become so many snares for 
 the honest and unsuspecting citizen. As for the 
 cautious villain, he is on his guard, and will alvvay* 
 be certain to escape. That such wretches are to be 
 
{ ^2 ) 
 
 found in all countries, is not more disgraceful to'' 
 human nature; than it is true. The Governments 
 who are so degraded as to employ people of this 
 description, are sunk low indeed. They become 
 dishonoured by a certain degree of intimacy and 
 familiarity, with which they are obliged to treat' 
 them. Such Governments as have so far forgot their ' 
 dignity as to employ spies, have always found them- 
 selves in this degraded situation; and as soon as 
 possible have shaken them off. Instances are even 
 upon record, where the informer and spy has paid 
 the forfeit of his crimes, at the expence of his 
 life ; and that even by the sentence of that Govern- 
 ment Ire had served. Watt, who was hanged and 
 beheaded at 'Edinburgh for high treason, on the- 
 15th October 1794, is an instance of this kind. 
 He had been employed as a political spy, by the' 
 Lord Advocate of Scotland, at the desire of Henry'' 
 Dundass secretary of state. Upon his trial, he* 
 subpoenaed the Lord Advocate as an exculpatory 
 evidence. It then appeared upon his examination/ 
 that he had been in the habit of receiving intelli- 
 gence from Watt; and that at one time he had' 
 paid him thirty pounds sterling for a piece of infor- 
 mation. It also further appeared, that it was about 
 the /;mY% that they finally differed. Watt demanded 
 a thousand pounds sterling for discovering that plot, 
 of which he himself was the chief promoter. The 
 sum was refused, his house was searched, the pre- 
 tended plot was discovered, and he fell under the 
 vengeance of Government, unpitied by ail parties. 
 Mav this forever be a warnins: to such characters, 
 and teach them the necessity of honesty ! 
 
 Such being the case, it must be evident, that laws 
 which requir<3 such means to carry them into effect, 
 must be extremely uncertain in their operations, as 
 well as the punishments frequently unjust. He who 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 can descend so low, will hardly boggle at a false oath. 
 Few will be ambitious of such an employment, 
 Excepting such as are of the most abandoned. cha- 
 racters ; lost to every sense of honesty and honour* 
 Perha^ps a, few- individuals might be. found in any 
 countjr}^j who might undertake such an employment, 
 from mistaken notions of patriotism. If such are 
 to be found, they that moment cease, to h^. patrioi^Sy 
 and become. ^/^£eA\ Wherever they are known, their 
 company ^nd can versation will be avoided, and they 
 will be. d;€;?.pised and detested. Even in rii^/r, where 
 spies are sp frequently made use of, and where the 
 office! is, thought the most excusable;, even there 
 they are h\it half trifstt^d hy their employers. As 
 for traitors to the. cause they havQ espoused, j tlie 
 fate of an Arnold and a Dumourier are sufficient 
 exaiTjples of the light in vyhich-such characters are 
 behejd' — of the way in which they niay expect to be 
 treated, even by those they have served. The ojie 
 never, respected, nor entrusted with any ijuportant 
 comqiand; the.,(?/Aer despised and detested — drivea 
 from country to country, a wandering vagabond; 
 refused permission to reside in the territories of those 
 very princes whose cause he had served. 
 
 In most cases the same fate will almost inevitably 
 follow spies and informers^ when the ends for which 
 they were employed are attained. He who to serve 
 me, has deceived another, how am I sure but he 
 may deceive me ? If such is the fate of those cha- 
 racters from their " employers, how must they be 
 despised and detested by their fellowc-itizens ? " We 
 disapprove of the superior, however well informed 
 he may be, who undertakes by chastisement to 
 induce me to alter my opinion or vary in my choice ; 
 but we disapprove still more, and toe do zvell, 
 of the man who officiates as the ARGUS of my 
 tyrant, who reports my conduct, not for the purpose 
 
t 64 ) 
 
 of fetictea^mg my wisdom and prudence, not for the 
 purpose of instructing others, but that he may bring 
 down upon me the brute, the slavish and exaspe- 
 rating arm of power."* 
 
 , Oaths and tests are another inevitable consequence 
 of Sedition laws. They are in all cases whatever, 
 of the utmost injury to truth, the only foundation of 
 all morality. To this source may be justly attri- 
 buted, the prevalence of falsehood and insincerity 
 amongst every class of society. Among the les^ 
 informed part of mankind, it i^ most notoriously so. 
 How often do we hear from such, when charged 
 with having related a falsehood, — " Why sure you 
 know I was not upon oath :'* or, " I did not sxveat 
 it was true." AVhat sort of morality is this? Hov^ 
 contrary to the spirit of the gospel, and the strict 
 and positive command of Jesus Christ? *' I say 
 unto you, smear not at ally but let your yea be yea, 
 and your nay, nay." He knew the pernicious ten- 
 dency of oaths, and therefore prohibited his foll6wers 
 from making use of them. Iknow the generality 
 of christians say, that this injunction is only against 
 profane swearing in common discourse. But it 
 ought to be recollected, that this vice was already 
 prohibited under the law. " Thou shalt not take the 
 name of the Lord thy God in vain." Tins prohi- 
 bited vain swearing in common conversation, and 
 one of the most respectable and virtuous denomi- 
 nations of christians in this country are of this 
 opinion, viz. the Friends. 
 
 Tlie pernicious tendency of oaths, is seen and felt 
 in a variety of instances in private life, and these 
 occur almost every day. The tongue of slander^ 
 the impositions of trade and traffic, ^re all to be 
 attributed to this tremendous evil. Even servants 
 V 
 
 ♦ Godwin. 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 are taught to deny their masters and mistresses 
 though they are at home. Can such expect their 
 servants will always speak the truth to them- 
 selves; from, such an example taught them by those 
 who ought to know better? It is not my business 
 at present to enquire, whether this conduct can at 
 any time, or under any circumstances be proper, it 
 is sufficient to shew that it is injurious to morality. 
 After all the sneers and satires of Dean Swift against 
 this class of the Community; the most pernicious 
 Hnd prominent of their vices, are to be justly attri- 
 buted to the example of their masters. With regard 
 to slaves^ this is peculiarly the case. 
 
 It may be asked, "how are you to obtain the 
 truth in cases of importance, if oaths are abolished?" 
 In the same way as it is attained from the Quakers. 
 One of this society is hardly ever known to deceive 
 a court or jury. If they did, their character would 
 be lost amongst their own society ; and the law 
 would punish them for perjury, in the same way 
 as it does those who swear by book or hand. 
 
 This however, I shall omit investigating any far- 
 ther. If it is only acknowledged, that oaths ought 
 not to be frequently administered; the principle for 
 which I contend may be readily admitted. In Great- 
 Britain the evil tendency of the multiplication of 
 oaths has been frequently, and justly complained 
 of, even by those who esteem them sometimes ne- 
 cessary. The various classes of manufacturers who 
 are under the demon fangs of the Excise ; are par- 
 ticularly exposed to temptations oi fraud upon oaih^ 
 and even to the swearing o^Jalse ones. One instance 
 of this kind I shall adduce ; not because it is a soli- 
 tary one; but from its singularity. It will tend to 
 shew, better than a folio volume upon the subject, 
 how much a mans morals must have been injured, 
 before he could have fallen upon so dangerous and 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 » immoral a scheme. I shall just beg to premise-— 
 that in Great Britian every retailer of foreign spirits, 
 wines, teas and coffee, are obliged to make oath 
 from time to time, that he has not sold more than 
 the quantity of goods, specified by him in a certain 
 book: that is, he must swear that he is an honest 
 7nan ! 
 
 ^' I recollect of hearing an anecdote of a dealer in 
 tea, who was one of those apparently austere religi- 
 ous people, to be met with in every place : When 
 the invention of shopkeepers swearing to the excise 
 officers of the fairness of their trade, was first put in 
 practice, this man, who had always been in the 
 practice of smuggling a little, and was now very un- 
 willing to forego the advantages thereof on ac- 
 count of an oath, set his invention to work in con- 
 triving a method of smuggling, swearing, and hav- 
 ing a sound conscience: — the result of mature deli- 
 beration was, that on a Sacrament Sunday, he shut 
 himself up in his room, and after a long prayer, 
 made a solemn oath that he should never in his life 
 Speak a true sentence to a ganger (excise oflicer.) 
 He ever afterwards considered this oath of greater 
 weight than the other ; and his conscience as very 
 free from stain, although he perjured himself once 
 every three months."* 
 
 To this anecdote it may be perhaps, objected, 
 that admitting this, it was an affair wherein his pe- 
 cuniary interest was alone concerned ; and does by 
 no means apply to politics. This however, is a sub- 
 ject where party prejudice is as strong in its opera- 
 tions, as where self interest is concerned. It is on^ 
 ly a few years ago, that a clergyman of the estab- 
 lished church in Scotland; was tried for, and con- 
 
 * See the Bee, publlflied by Dr. Andcrfon of Edinburgh, Vol. 
 1. No, VII. — Pages, 251 and 252. 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 victed of perjury, and stood in the pillory for the 
 same : And this was for swearing he was qualified 
 to give his vote for a member of Parliament, when he 
 was not. Such are some of the consequences of the 
 multiplication of oaths. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Danger of Government interjerlng in the direction of 
 public opinion.— Its incapability of doing so, de- 
 duced fvm examples drawn from the History of 
 several proscribed opinions. — Persecution of the 
 Protestants. — Of the Presbyterians. — Old French 
 Government, their Jealousy. — Attempts of the Bri- 
 tish Government in America. — Trial of John Peter 
 Zeiiger. — In Britain, Wllks, Junius, &V. 
 
 E 
 
 I VERY Government however constituted, or 
 
 whatever be its form, is always possessed of an ex- 
 tensive influence among the people. Although it 
 be true, that Government depends for its chief, if 
 not its only support, upon public opinion; yet it 
 will always have a very considerable share in the 
 formation, and direction thereof. This arises from 
 the unavoidable patronage w^iich it seems necessary 
 to confer upon it; or at least, which seems pretty 
 generally thought so to be. It may thence be obvi- 
 ous, that throwing any additional weight into this 
 already preponderating scale, must be extremely 
 improper, and highly dangerous. To guard the 
 Government by Sedition laws, is giving to it the 
 power of at least attempting to direct the opinions 
 of the people. It gives to it the authority of deter- 
 mining what the people shall say concerning them. 
 It is not falsehood Xh'^t it will guard against; other- 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 wise /a//OTy would be equally punishable; equally 
 a libel. The flattering sycophant will always escape 
 the censure of •Government ; while the honest man 
 who boldly speaks disagreeable truths, will fall a 
 victim to his sincerity, and patriotism. Not unfre- 
 quently, the flatterer will be rewarded for his false- 
 hood. Like honest Mordecai, those who refuse to 
 bow down to proud Haman, are always sure to give 
 oflence to the Satellites of power; and it is but sel- 
 dom that an Ahasuerus is to be found to punish the 
 haughty minister. The injury to the interests of mo- 
 rality are incalculable ; because its great and only 
 foundation, truth, is thus sapped; nay, it is over- 
 thrown. In trials for Sedition, unbiassed decisions 
 may be given; but they are hardly to be expected. 
 The Judges who owe their appointment to the exe- 
 cutive branch of the Government, will generally 
 feel influenced in such cases, even though men of 
 the strictest honor in every other. Men during the 
 time of public ferment, generally espouse one side 
 or other. It is not often that characters, who dif- 
 fer in opinion from administration are selected upon 
 such trials. In this case, how are impartial verdicts 
 to be expected? They are called upon to decide, 
 upon what ? On sentiments they have already de- 
 clared themselves enemies to. But supposing the 
 truth is allowed to be given in evidence; it may 
 only be opinions^ how are their truth or falsehood to 
 be determined? A decision in this case, would be 
 as absurd as deciding which was the most palatable 
 food, agreeable drink, or beautiful colour. A par- 
 ticular act of the administration appears to me un- 
 just, and because I tell my opinion to my neighbour, 
 write it to my friend, or communicate it to my 
 fellow-citizens through the medium of the Press, 
 therefore must I be punished; not because I have 
 done evil, but because I have oflFended an individu- 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 al high in office ! Ixt common sense, if law does 
 not, forbid such absurdity. However such pro- 
 ceedings may for a time be carried on, there is a 
 certain point beyond which they cannot go. The 
 sentiments of reason and truth will always ultimate- 
 ly prevail ; those of an opposite kind, will be con- 
 signed to contempt and eternal oblivion. In vain 
 may Government give them its support; in vain may 
 pensioned hirelings or hungy expectants defend them 
 with their prostituted pens; in vain may the law, 
 armed with all its terrors of Jails, racks, gibbets or 
 guillotines come forward to extirpate them from the 
 face of the earth: If they be founded on Justice, if 
 they be accordant with truth, they shall certainly 
 triumph. 
 
 That this is the case, history sufficiently shews. 
 A few out of innumerable instances, may not be 
 deemed improper, to shew how illy calculated Go- 
 vernment is to prescribe the channel in which public 
 opinion shall flow. 
 
 Socrates for asserting the unity of the Deity, was 
 put to death by the Athenian Government. 
 
 The opinions of the founder of Christianity were 
 considered by the Jewish Government as destruc- 
 tive both of church and state. By them he was 
 deemed a disturber of the public peace ; or in 
 modern language, a disorganizing Jacobin. A 
 reward was offered for his person, and he who had 
 declared that " his kingdom was not of this world," 
 was put to an Ignominious death, under the accu- 
 sation of wanting to be king of the Jews. 
 
 The apostles who at the expence of their lives 
 publicly taught the same opinions, had all the force 
 of all the Governments where they preached, 
 exerted against them; yet those opinions at last 
 triumphed over this formidable opposition. 
 
 After the establishment of Christianity, and when 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 innovation was added to innovation, and absurdity- 
 heaped upon absurdity ; vi^hen the original princi- 
 ples of the gospel of Jesus were buried under an 
 accumulated and accumulating mountain of super- 
 stitious dogmas : Then the church of Rome impi- 
 ously declared her infallibility. All investigation of 
 her doctrines, ceremonies, and worship was prohi- 
 bited and anathematised. Burnings, massacres and 
 persecution of every kind, pnly hastened the 
 downfall of that proud and domineering mistress 
 over the consciences and reason of mankind. In 
 the first place, they served to hasten the period, and 
 in the second to promote the progress of the reforma- 
 tion. Her splendid habiliments, sanctioned by time, 
 were torn off, and she was exposed naked to an asto- 
 nished world in all her native filthiness and defor- 
 mity. Still diminishing in consequence and power; 
 we. have seen her chief driven from his throne, and the 
 most enlightened parts of the world have been those 
 where the doctrines of the reformation prevailed. 
 
 Notwithstanding the unlimited power of the Star 
 Chamber and of the High Commission Court in 
 England under the reign of Charles the first, still 
 it could not stifle the complaints of the people, nor 
 could it prevent the progress of republicanism, and 
 the destruction of the hierarchy, aristocracy, and 
 monarchy of that country. . And no sooner were the 
 people convinced by occular demonstration of the 
 tyranny of Cromwell, than the same all powerful 
 operation of opinion had force enough to make the 
 usurper tremble for his life 3 and even after his 
 death, to restore monarchy again. What I here 
 allude to, w^as a phamphlet published by Colonel 
 Titus, entitled, " Killing, no Murder J' " Of ,all 
 the pamphlets that came forth at that time, or per- 
 haps of those that have since appeared, this was the 
 most eloquent and masterly." " Shall wc," said this 
 
C 71 ) 
 
 popular declaimer, "who would not suffer the lion 
 to invade us, tamely stand to be devoured by the 
 wolf?" — " Cromwell read this spirited treatise', and 
 was never seen to smile more."^ 
 
 Charles the second, untaught by the fate of his 
 unfortunate father, attempted to force Episcopacy 
 upon the people of Scotland. Bishops and Curates 
 were appointed and established, while the Presby- 
 terian clergy were thrust from their churches and 
 their Hocks. The people were commanded to think 
 as the court did ; and were also prohibited from 
 worshiping God in that way which they thought 
 most acceptable to him. Soldiers were ordered to 
 prevent their assembling in the fields, for the purpose 
 of devotion, and when the people, driven mad by 
 oppression of body, as w^ell as mind, took up arms 
 to defend themselves, they were massacred in every 
 place where they could be found. By a monument 
 erected in the Grey Friars church yard, at Edin- 
 burgh, it appears ; — that under the reign, of this 
 debauched and dissipated tyrant, upwards of one 
 hundred noblemen and gentlemen, besides others of 
 inferior rank were executed in Edinburgh alone ; 
 and that for no other reason, than because they pre- 
 ferred a Presbyterian form of church government, 
 and worship, to that, of the present church of 
 England ; and also for refusing to acknowledge the 
 spiritual supremacy of his most sacred majesty! ! ! 
 
 Plis brother, James the second, pursued the sam.e 
 measures in order to re-establish the church of Rome. 
 The fate of both, is sufficiently known. The name 
 of Charles is in Scotland consigned to that obloquy 
 which ever attends the memory of a tyrant ; and 
 the bigotted James was driven from his throne and 
 native land. The principles attempted to be sup- 
 
 * GoldfmUh's History of England. 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 pressed by " this pair of hr other s^^ were trium- 
 phant ; while England and Scotland chose that form 
 of religion which each thought best. 
 
 During the reigns of these brothers, it is com- 
 puted, that upwards of 20,000 human beings were 
 sacrificed upon the scaffold and the field, or perished 
 by the still more horrid means of imprisonment, 
 torture, and shipwreck ; and all this in Scotland 
 alone. After the battle of Pentland Hill, thirty-five 
 of the prisoners were hanged before their own doors, 
 and ten others upon one gibbet, erected for the 
 purpose in Edirlburgh. After the just assassination 
 (if ever there was one) of that detestible scoundrel 
 Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews ; the Presby- 
 terians were defeated at Both well Bridge with the 
 loss of 700 killed, and 1200 taken prisoners. Of 
 these 200 were condemned to transportation, and 
 shipped for Barbadoes ; every one of whom perished 
 by the w^ay. Dragoons were ordered to scour the 
 country, and hundreds were by them shot in the 
 fields, and butchered in their houses. Women were 
 tied to stakes within the sea mark at low water; and 
 so left to be drowned when the tide returned. 
 " Subjects who refused to comply with the religious 
 2iV\6. political maxims of the court, were hunted like 
 wild beasts on the mountains. Hundreds after being 
 put to the torture suffered martyrdom ; many retired 
 from their native country, now the scene of perse- 
 cution, to a voluntary exile in the wilds of Ireland. 
 Others, after being scourged, maimed, and exposed 
 to all the indignities and insults, to which male- 
 factors are doomed, w^ere transported as slaves to 
 Jamaica and the American plantations."* 
 
 What an excellent companion a short history of 
 the above transactions would make to Porcupine's 
 
 ♦ See a work, entitled, " Political fituatlon of the Scots, xS:c»'* 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 Bloody Buoy ; more especialy as they were done under 
 a regular and energetic Government ; and by the com^ 
 mand of one of the " Lord's anointed!" 
 
 The jealousy of the old French Government was 
 sufficiently displayed in its tyrannical police ; its 
 CofFee-House spies; its Bastile, and other State- 
 Prisons; together with its infernal Letfres de Cachet, 
 Though from political enmity to Britain, the Go- 
 vernment assisted the Americans in procuring their 
 independence ; yet they would not permit the Ameri- 
 can Constitutions to be published in France. Not 
 many years before the Revolution, Louis the XVI. 
 prohibite'd all English newspapers from entering his 
 dominions. Notwithstanding all this jealousy; not- 
 withstanding these terrible obstacles which opinion 
 had to encounter; we have seen other opinions pre- 
 vail ; we have seen that strongly fortified Govern- 
 ment overthrown. 
 
 At an early period of the history of this country, 
 attempts were made by the British Government to 
 check the free publication of opinion. In 1734, 
 John Peter Zenger, printer in New- York, was pro- 
 secuted at the instance of the Attorney General for 
 the Province, on a charge of printing Seditious Li- 
 bels in his newspaper. He was indeed finally clear- 
 ed by a patriotic jury of his fellow-citizens; but for 
 this the Government deserved no thanks. The/'' 
 did whatever wafe in their power, both to condemn 
 him, and prevent him from again exercising his pro- 
 fession. From that time, down to the period of the 
 Revolution, every method was tried which was in 
 the power of the British King and his Governors, 
 to suppress that spirit of liberty and independence 
 which at last was so gloriously triumphant. 
 
 Since George the Third ascended the British 
 throne, the most pointed enmity to the Liberty of 
 the Press has been displayed under every admini«- 
 
 K 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 tration. The trial of Mr. Wilks, author af the 
 North Briton, and of the publisher of the elegant 
 Letters of Junius, are sufficiently notorious. The 
 Proclamation of the 8th May, 1792 against Sedi- 
 tious writmgs; and the trial of Thomas Paine which 
 followed soon after, all only served as so many ad- 
 vertisements for the sale of the Rights of Man. 
 Thousands of people read the celebrated political 
 writings of this man; who, had it not been for the 
 Proclamation and trial, would in all probability, 
 forever remained ignorant of the existence of the au- 
 thor, and his works. Andy thus it will ever be, 
 when means like these are taken to suppress and 
 silence arguments founded on reason and Justice. 
 Although the principles of Republicanism have not 
 yet triumphed in the British dominions; yet, such 
 seeds are already sown, as in all probability will one 
 day yield a luxuriant crop, productive of incalcula- 
 ble blessings to those countries themselves ; and con- 
 ducive to the happiness and peace of surrounding 
 nations. The flame may be smothered, but the fire 
 is still alive. The fate of an Hampden and a Sidney; 
 a Muir and a Gerald; a Skirving and a Palmer, 
 are not yet forgotten. The miseries of unhappy Ire- 
 land, are too deeply engraven to be obhterateds 
 they are recorded in tears and in blood. May the 
 example of their oppressors never serve as a prece- 
 dent to the oppressed, when the days of retribution 
 arrive ! 
 
 Let It not be said, that the preceding relation of 
 historical facts have nothing to do with the subject of 
 this enquiry. They have much to do with it. They 
 tend to prove, in the most incontrovertible manner^ 
 that there is always danger to be apprehended from 
 Government interfering in the direction of public 
 opinion. They also prove the omnipotence ot opin- 
 ion over the most energetic government that ca» 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 exist. They prove that the means are Insufficient 
 to the end; when governments put in practice that 
 authority which they so freqently wish to usurp. 
 
 The mference then is plain. No human power 
 can prevent the progress of opinion. To the ope- 
 ration of this all powerful principle, in conjunction 
 with the Liberty of the Press, the people of 
 the United States are as much indebted as to their 
 swords for their liberty and independence. Had 
 the right of speaking, writing, and printing been 
 prohibited, the advantages of a change of situation 
 could never have been made sufficiently apparent. 
 It is true, oppression speaks in the most forcible 
 language to the feelings of mankind. But, I'tfecl- 
 vin- instead of reason is to govern our actions, they 
 will be frequently erroneous and unjust. In this 
 particular instance, if the passions alone had been 
 the pilot of public exertion, it is to be feared, the 
 final result would have been very different. The 
 opposition to British usurpation was however begun 
 upon principles of justice and common sense; and 
 public opinion being allowed to have free operation, 
 the result was worthy of the cause. 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 General reasdnhigs from the foregoing premises. — 
 Conclusion. 
 
 XF there be any thing truly valuable in the enjoy-^ 
 ment of liberty, that unrestrained Freedom^ of 
 Speech and Press contended for in the foregoing 
 pages, must be amongst the first of its advantages. 
 Compare the situation of mankind previous to the 
 art of printing being discovered. Contrast the 
 
{ 76 ) 
 
 knowledge and information so generally ditTused 
 among the people now, with that almost universal 
 ignorance which prevailed in ancient times. Con- 
 template the valuable discoveries in every art and 
 science, and compare them with the crude and 
 undigested theories of the dark ages. If after having 
 considered these things, you can prefer ancient^ 
 habits, customs or ideas ; then indeed, printing has 
 been injurious, and we ought to wish for the return 
 of the days of ignorance and superstition. But, if 
 we draw a different conclusion, we shall most 
 certainly prefer the present times, with all their yet 
 imperfections, to those when master and slavCy 
 (or ^vhat amounted to the same thing) lord and vassal 
 were the only distinguishing appellations among the 
 human race. Those chains of feudal tyranny have 
 been destroyed in most European countries, and 
 the people are gradually rising to that situation 
 which nature seems to have designed them to 
 occupy. That the last of these is entirely owing to 
 the diffusion of knowledge and mformation, is suf- 
 ficiently evident from comparing the state of society 
 in those countries where knowledge has made little 
 or no advances, with that of those where arts and 
 science have be-en cultivated. 
 
 No people of any country have experienced the 
 happy effects of a free discussion on political sub- 
 jects, more than the people of the United States. 
 It is their interest to guard this important privilege 
 with the utmost vigilance and care. It will he seen 
 from the reasonings that have been adduced ; that 
 being an inherent right, and of a nature not to be 
 delegated j it must of course always continue with 
 the people. It will also appear, that this right is 
 guarantee'd to them by the Constitution of their 
 Government, and that while their legislators are 
 allowed a perfect freedom of debate, without being 
 
( -7 ) 
 
 called to ^iccount ; it is absurd to suppose the people, 
 divested of that which their public agents enjoy. 
 
 All the opponents of the Liberty of the Press, 
 have sheltered themselves behind the specious veil 
 of preserving the public peace. They say, licen- 
 ..tiousness must be suppressed. Dangerous opinions 
 in politics and religion must be guarded against ; 
 otherwise the social order of society will be endan- 
 gered. What, it may be asked, would have been 
 tne situation of mankind at this moment, had the 
 subjects of religion and pohtics never been inves- 
 tigated? Orthodox and Hetrodox are words of very 
 doubtful meaning. What is orthodox at Constan- 
 tinople, is hetrodox at Rome, and what is deemed 
 sacred and indisputable by the conclave, is termed 
 superstition at Geneva. As it is in respect to religion, 
 so is it with politics. Those who are in the admi-, 
 liistratipn of Government, will always defend its 
 principles, and its actions -, whether it be that of a 
 Turkish Bashaw, or a Prime Minister of England. 
 Investigation is equally dreaded by both. Both are 
 sufficiently aware that many imperfections exist in 
 their systems of Government, and that many abuses 
 j^re committed under them. It is however to be hop- 
 tfd, that the officers of Government on this side of the 
 Atlantic will not again^ follow such pernicious exam- 
 ples. 
 
 The victory over British despotism by the people 
 of the United States, was certainly a great and 
 glorious event. At the expence of much blood and 
 treasure they acquired the right of independent 
 legislation -, and of forming a Government of their 
 own choice. What the people .have made, they 
 may surely mend. The State and Federal Govern- 
 ments of America have many exctellencies. ^ Per- 
 fiaps no country can boast, with justice, of enjoying 
 an equal degree of liberty. Does 4 hQ.W^ver tpllow. 
 
{ 78 ) 
 
 that the Federal Constitution is the best that can be 
 devised? Arc there no faults in this instrument 
 uhich it might be possible to remover Is it the 
 climax of all perfection ? Its warmest supporters 
 will not be hardy enough to answer in the affirma- 
 tive. A bare supposition of its unalterable perfec- 
 tion, were it for a moment admitted, would prove 
 too much. It would be asserting that mankind had 
 now seen and examined the whole circle of political 
 science. If this were the case, it ought to stop all 
 enquiry and speculation ; and the press ought no 
 longer to investigate political subjects. If, however, 
 it be admitted, that improvement may yet be made i 
 why check, by restraining laws, the free operation 
 of opinion, either with respect to principles or men? 
 It ought to be always remembered, that MAN is 
 ^ perfec table, but not a perfect animal. Me has' 
 interwoven in his nature, a principle of infinite 
 advancement. He is capable of going on from 
 improvement to improvement ; but never destined 
 to arrive at the end of his intcllectaal labours. If 
 there was any fixed point, at which the improve- 
 ment of man could stop, then indeed there would 
 be an end to his researches ; and investigation ought 
 then to cease. That continual activity of mind 
 W'hich leads men on to investigate the circle of the 
 arts and sciences with unceasing ardour, and which 
 is communicated like our existence from one gene- 
 ration to another ; all this would then be of no use. 
 Could we suppose this barely possible ; mankind 
 so far from being made happy, would be deprived 
 of the most valuable pleasures of which their nature 
 is capable. They would be deprived of the contem- 
 plation of objects and designs conducive to the 
 benefit of the species. If this reasoning be well 
 'founded it will naturally follow, that no limits can 
 be assigned to our researches. Individuals die, but 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 the species is im-mortal ; and as the species, so are 
 their improvements illimitable. How absurd then 
 is it for people to talk of prescribing bounds to the 
 progress of opinion, either in politics or religion ? 
 In the last, Jesus Christ has said — " Let the tares 
 grow up with the wheat." Who then are they who 
 will dare to call men to an account for particular 
 religious tenets ? It certainly belongs not to man, but 
 to God ! 
 
 Political opinions never can be destructive of 
 social order, or public tranquility, if allowed a free 
 operation. The law is at all times sufficiently ener- 
 getic to punish disturbers of the public peace'. 
 When men are found guilty of this, ht them be 
 punished ; it is well. It is not then punishing 
 opinion, it is punishing actions injurious to the peace 
 of the community. 
 
 But some have asserted, that the people may 
 know too much. That there are certain things they 
 ought not to be acquainted with, even though true. 
 That in some cases our enquiries may go too far ; 
 and, that some things ought always to be concealed. 
 
 If truth can be in any case injurious to the inte- 
 rests of the community ; these objections might be 
 allowed some weight. It however yet remains to 
 be proved, that truth can fever be injurious. All 
 enquiries are supposed to have truth for their object. 
 Let then those noble sentiments of Dr. Conyers 
 Middleton, in the preface to his free enquiry be 
 adopted by every enquirer after truth. 
 
 " In enquiries, therefore, whenever I perceive 
 any glimmering of truth before me, I readily pursue, 
 and endeavour to trace it to its source, without any 
 reserve Or caution of pushing too far, or opening too 
 great a glare to the public. I look upon the disco- 
 very of any thing zvhich is true, as a valuable 
 acquisition to society,, which cannot hurt or obstruct 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 the good effect of any other truth whatsoever ; for 
 they all partake of one common essence, and neces- 
 sarily coincide with each other ; and like the drops 
 of rain which fall separately into the river, mix 
 themselves at once with the stream, and strengthen 
 the general current." 
 
 Setting aside the idea of the perfect ahiliiy of man 
 for a moment ; still there are arguments sufficient 
 to support the necessity and justice of an unres- 
 trained Liberty of the Press. 
 
 It is generally allowed, that the science of Go- 
 vernment is not as yet sufficiently understood. But 
 will it ever be better known, if it is not allowed to 
 be investigated ? The same form of Government has 
 existed in China for two or three thousand years. 
 The reason of this is the ignorance of the people. 
 Notwithstanding the praises bestowed upon it by the 
 Abbe Raynal and other writers; it is nothing more 
 than a detestable system of legal tyranny. Such will 
 all Governments become, if they are suffered to 
 grow independent of public censure or applause. 
 Abuses become. sanctioned by time, and in propor- 
 tion to their age, they acquire strength. The safest 
 way to destroy them, is to attack them when young. 
 It will be attended withwthe greatest safety both to 
 Government, and the peace of the community. 
 Notwithstanding all the care of the people in dele- 
 gating powder, still many things will afterwards be 
 found wanting \ or improvements of some kind or 
 other necessary to be made. Let then public 
 discussion be unrestrained. The ideas of the first 
 proposer may be improved on by succeeding writers, 
 and from collision of sentirnent, truth will ultimately 
 be produced. 
 
 Sedition laws are less intended for the mainte- 
 nance of public tranquihty; than for the defence of 
 certain individuals. Nothingisan be more pernicious^ 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 nothing more dangerous. What Individual Is of that 
 vast importance to society, that he should have a 
 particular clause in the criminal code of the country, 
 for his particular safety. Are not the lau^s already 
 sufficiently povi^erful to punish every offence? If they 
 are not, let them be made so; but never let that 
 great principle of all lav^ be violated : — '^ That of 
 operating equally upon all, ivhether it protects or 
 punishes^ But Sedition laws violate this maxim. 
 They prescribe certain modes of punishment, for 
 certain supposed crimes, wherein a chief magistrate's 
 conduct has been arraigned. Every public officer 
 is entrusted with power for the good of the commu- 
 nity. If so, then his actions ought to be w^atched ; 
 and if they over-leap the bounds of the Constitution, 
 the public ought to know it. But how shall this 
 be known if public opinion is fettered? Besides, it 
 is the interest of the magistrates and public function- 
 aries themselves, to know the state of public opinion. 
 It will in many cases serve as a guide to their deter- 
 minations. It will enable them to distinguish their 
 friends from their enemies. But few will the ene- 
 mies of that government be, whose actions are di- 
 rected by the rules of justice and the Constitution ; 
 and the tenor of whose conduct has always been 
 expressive of the sincerest wishes for the public wel- 
 fare. In all investigations of a public nature, per- 
 sonal invective ought, in justice, to be avoided. It 
 has, however, unfortunately happened, that for 
 some years past, a more frequent resort has been 
 had by writers of all parties, to personal jnvective 
 and abuse, than was either necessary or just. If 
 men diffiir in opinion, surely the common rules of 
 politeness ought not therefore to be thrown aside. 
 In all cases, where difference of opinion exists, the 
 investigation of truth ought to be the only object. 
 Personal dislike to ^ individual, will never ope- 
 
(82) 
 
 rate upon a great mind. It ought certainly never to 
 have a place in public discussions; neither ought 
 extraneous circumstances v^'ith which the public 
 have no concern, ever to be brought into view. A 
 practice of an oposite kind^ so far from convincing, 
 will tend to irritate, and fix error deeper in the mind. 
 Jn . order to convince, it is necessary to make it ap- 
 pear that truth, and not personal revenge, is yt)ur 
 object. 
 
 But even should this impropriety sometimes hap- 
 pen, it ought never to be adduced as a proof of th(5 
 licentiousness of the Press; nor used as an argument 
 for the necessity of infringing its Liberty. It arises 
 frcm the remains of that terror which w^as insepara- 
 ble from the restrictions under which the Press la- 
 boured, for a long period after the discovery of prin- 
 ting. It is also a consequence of that fear which too 
 often pervades the middle and lower class of man- 
 kind ; of giving offence to some rich individual, or 
 great man in authority. Let such, if investigating 
 public affairs, boldly speak what appears to them to 
 be true. Let falsehood never stain the political 
 page; and let great men never be offended at li/ile 
 men for freedom of political investigation. Not- 
 withstanding all that has been said to the contrary, 
 the poor man has as much at stake, and is as much 
 interested in the stability of government, as the 
 richest man in the community. And if he thinks 
 that any observations of his may be of advantage to 
 his fellow-citizens, he has an equal right to commu- 
 nicate them. It is of no consequence to enquire who 
 writes a paper or a pamphlet, where principles and 
 not individuals are the subjects of investigation. The 
 only reasonable enquiry is, are the principles contend- 
 ed for just.? If they are, let them have their due 
 weight ; if otherwise, they will iiveet with their merited 
 contempt. In all cases, however, where specific or 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 general charges arc exhibited against an intllvldual, 
 or individuals j the persons name ought to he affixed 
 to the publication. In this case, wilful calumny and 
 abuse would never dare to make their appearance. 
 He who had been once convicted of publishing a 
 malicious falsehood, would forever after be deprived 
 of the means of giving currency to his calumnies. 
 Let not Government interfere. The laws of society, 
 as before observed, are fully sufficient to the purpose. 
 
 If newspapers, and other publications, have lately 
 teemed with misrepresentation, or wuth undeserved 
 abuse of private or public character : If calumnies 
 and invective dressed up in the language of billings- 
 gate have been profusely dealt abroad instead of ar- 
 gument ; what is to be done ? Docs it follow that we 
 Ought to be deprived of LIBERTY because it may 
 be, or has been %bused.^ Will justice not rather 
 say, let misrepresentation be exposed by the force 
 of truth. Let characters who have been unjustly 
 accused, vindicate themselves by pointing out the 
 falsehood of the charges ; and let foul language be 
 treated w^th that contempt it so justly merits. In. 
 no case zvhatever use coejxive ineasmrs. Truth is at 
 all times sufficiently pow^erful. Coercion may sile?ice, 
 but it never can convince. 
 
 It is the duty of both Government and people to 
 act justly. Openness, sincerity, and candour, 
 should characterise all their trans actijons. As men 
 are so liable to error and mistake, they should be 
 alike open to reason and conviction. Mankind 
 being in a state of progressional improvement; they 
 should avoid throwing any obstacles in its way. 
 In a free and unrestrained Liberty of Speech and 
 Press, many errors will undoubtedly bt brought be- 
 fore the public eye ; but, even these will not be 
 without their use. When detected by accurate 
 reasoning, the truth wnll appear with increased 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 jiistre. The only danger to be apprehended. Is 
 from investigation being fettered^ and error allowed 
 to become rooted in the mind. 
 
 Let the whi'g and tory, the royalist and aristocrate, 
 the republican and democrat, or by whatever other 
 name the partizans of political parties are desig- 
 nated; let them, I say, be allowed to express their 
 opinions, whether by speech or press, with the same 
 unconstrained freedom with which men of science 
 discuss their subjects of investigation. No more 
 danger will result from the one discussion, than 
 arises from the other. 
 
 An unlimited freedom in the exercise of religious 
 
 opinions has been recognized in the United States. 
 
 The good effects of this are sufficiently visible. 
 
 We here see none of that superstitious enmity, and 
 
 uncharitable fanaticism of one denomination against 
 
 another, which is so prevalent in all European 
 
 countries where established relii^ions exist. This 
 
 • -I 
 very circumstance, which we now see realized, was 
 
 at no very remote period, deemed by many well 
 
 informed men to be utterly impracticable. Give 
 
 UNTO ALL OPINIONS THE SAME FREEDOM, 
 AND THE SAME EFFECTS WILL' FOLLOW. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA 
 
 Page 18 line 6 & 7 for Empyrean — read, Empyrzeum. 
 
 33 — 3 for Triennila — read. Triennial. 
 
 4 for Septlennial — read, Septennial, 
 — — 34 — 9 (fron^ the bottom) for held his hands — read, held up 
 his hands. 
 
 35 — ^ ^^^ Grandenston — read, Gardenston. 
 
 37 — 12 foi upon that Majesty's — read, his Majesty's; also 
 
 in the following line, for his high— read^ that high. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, 
 or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only: 
 
 Tel. No. 642-3405 
 Renewals may be made 4 days prior to date due. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recalL 
 
 garaifl iaiQ^?3-5i>iiss 
 
 
 ^-^ia OCT 16*16 
 
 m^ 
 
 11987 
 
 l^iJTD.DlSC.Mfl|??6 '87 
 
 LD2lA-40m-3,'72 
 (Qll78Sl0)476-A-32 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
: -^ 
 
 GWfWt 
 
 -a??" 
 
 M*^1520 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY