or wicked men, the Press can and ought to sound the alarm, and point out to the People their danger but this Liberty can never operate against Government, so as to produce any violent effects, without very violent causes. A great and admired Philosopher, whose opinion is always respectable when he does not treat of Religion, speaks here to the purpose. "This Liberty of the Press," says he," is attended with so few inconveniencies, that "it may be claimed as the common Right of Man"kind, and ought to be indulged them in almost << every Government. We need not dread from "this Liberty any such ill consequences as fol"lowed from the harangues of the popular Dema

gogues of Athens and Tribunes of Rome. A "man reads a Book or Pamphlet alone and coolly. "There is none present from whom he can catch "the passion by contagion. He is not hurried

away by the force and energy of action; and "should he be wrought up to ever so seditious "a humour, there is no violent resolution pre"sented to him by which he can immediatly vent "his passion. The Liberty of the Press, therefore, " however abused, can scarce ever excite popular "tumults or rebellion. And as to those murmurs "or secret discontents it may occasion, it is better

they should get vent in words, that they may "come to the knowledge of the Magistrate before "it be too late, in order to his providing a remedy

against them. Mankind, it is true, have always "a greater propension to believe what is said to "the disadvantage of their Governors, than the contrary but this inclination is inseparable from "them, whether they have Liberty or not. A whisper may fly as quick, and be as pernicious "as a Pamphlet: nay it will be more pernicious, "where men are not accustomed to think freely, "or distinguish between Truth and Falshood*."

66

But, thirdly, the great hinge on which these Reformers of the Press turn their favourite scheme is," the publication of Scandal." If by the sup pression of Scandal they mean the suppression of Satire, whether pointed at private or public vices, they are aiming at a point which they never will, never can effect. If there are culprits in morality, there will be correctors too: and while Wit can brandish his pen, or Satire her lash, let Folly expect no quarter.

But here the point they aim at is impracticable. Supposing that they lock up the babbling tongue * Hume's Essays, Vol. I. p. 13, 8vo. edit.

of the Press, can they lock up the tongues of individuals? Satire, confined in the narrow channel of private ridicule, cuts through every thing in its course; and, like the pestilential air pent up in close recesses, will rage with collected force, and burst with a louder explosion. How ineffectual the most rigorous Licensing, in the most despotic States, is to stop the tongue of Scandal, let Pasquin and Marforio witness at Rome; and let the lampoons of Versailles, and the epigrams of Paris, bear testimony in France. How much less equal

then to this task would be the boasted reformation in Britain, where Freedom of Speech is deemed the brightest jewel in the Constitution; and where every man is accustomed to speak what he thinks, and to think what he pleases!-Ridiculous policy! When Folly plays her anticks in a grave masque, the scene is doubly laughable.

I do not indeed deny, that Defamation is often, very often, ill-directed, and then always becomes a real grievance. I am no advocate for the satire that wounds the virtuous, the helpless, or the innocent. I know, too, with how much tenderness, respect, and even veneration, characters of exalted trust both in Church and State ought to be treated:

these are obligations which ought always to be binding on Society: but an infringement of all these obligations at once will not be sufficient to justify a restraint on the Freedom of the Press. These abuses have their ample remedies. If individuals are injured by the Press, the Courts of Law are open to their complaints, and willing to redress them. The Laws in force against Libelling and Defamation are replete with all the rigour which Justice or Severity could exact, and are within every one's reach. Why then should the Press be restricted to obviate abuses which the Law is already amply authorized to remedy?— I repeat it, I have a respect for private reputation, and I hold public characters sacred: but if any false reverences for Power and Authority should exempt the conduct of those intrusted with them from being canvassed by the Public, or scrutinized by any member of the community, adieu to that boasted Constitution which has existed, for ages, the envy and admiration of the whole world.

66

Fourthly (say our Licensers), in Elizabeth's "time the Press was not so wanton of its power,

"nor so liberal of its abuse, and yet the Govern

"ment was both happy and flourishing, nor did "the People murmur: Why might it not be so "now?"-For very obvious reasons, my LordsCecil is not at the Treasury-board, Coke is not in the Court of King's Bench, nor is Elizabeth on the throne. In truth, this argument could furnish a very extensive field for disputation; and the discussion of it would be a keen and continued satire on modern Ministers and modern Legislation. In these days, my Lords, in these happy days, the Queen of England was at once the sovereign of her People, and the guardian of their Laws. The public money was expended solely in public uses, and the offices of State were not set up to sale. Parliaments were sincere, and Elections were held sacred: There was but one instance of Bribery in the whole reign, when a candidate gave FOUR POUNDS to be returned to Parliament, for which he was

*This was taken from Sir Edward Coke. His words are remarkable: "Thomas Long gave the Maior of Westbury four "pound to be elected Burgesse, who thereupon was elected. "This matter was examined and adjudged in the House of Commons, secundum legem et consuetudinem Parliamenti, and the "Maior fined and imprisoned, and Long removed: for this cor"rupt dealing was to poyson the very fountain itself." 4 Inst. 23.