CHAPTER XIII.

PERSONAL LIBERTY.

'Per me ho adottata nell' intero la legge d'Inghilterra, ed a quella mi attengo; nè fo mai nessuno scritto che non potesse liberissimamente e senza biasimo nessuno dell' autore essere stampato nella beata e veramente sola libera Inghilterra. Opinioni, quanti se ne vuole: individui offesi, nessuni: costumi, rispettati sempre. Queste sono state, e saranno sempre le sole mie leggi; nè altre se ne può ragionevolmente amettere, nè rispettare.'

ALFIERI, Vita, t. ii. p. 133.

NEXT to civil liberty, in the order I have laid down, comes personal liberty. By personal liberty, I mean the freedom from restraint upon actions which are not criminal in themselves. The chief liberties of this class are the freedom of speaking and writing, and freedom of conscience in matters of religion. The absence of all exclusive personal privileges, such as signorial rights, exemption from taxes, monopoly of civil and military offices, must be reckoned also in this class; for that which is a privilege to one class of men is a restraint upon another.

The liberty of speaking and writing was allowed in ancient times, not only in free States, but wherever despotism fell into the hands of a mild sovereign; and so palling to the ear is the continual monotony of praise, that in the absolute kingdom of Persia, where the sovereign is thought to be the very image of the Divinity, a jester was always kept, whose business it was to tell the truth, and yet to tell it in such a way that the King might, if he pleased, laugh at the fable, and neglect the moral. The fool of modern kings was a creature

invented for the same purpose. Such were the devices which sovereigns adopted for the sake of hearing a little free observation, at a time when nations were divided into the court and the country. The court never spoke of the King's actions but to praise them, and the country never spoke of them at all. Such was still the state of Europe when Machiavel wrote The Prince,' and he takes it for granted, in that much-debated work, that the mass of the people can be kept wholly ignorant of the real character of their sovereign. The progress of knowledge has overturned the basis of his whole system, and were Machiavel to write at this day, he would probably recommend to kings a totally different line of conduct.

The policy pursued by the governments of Europe in later times has been extremely various. Austria and Spain long assumed as a principle that, as a general freedom of discussion must produce much calumny on private persons, much seditious writing against authority, and much matter offensive to morality and religion, it is prudent for the State, and humane to the writers, to place the press under the guardianship of censors appointed by the government. By this method, it was asserted, all fair and temperate discussion may be allowed; libels are crushed in the egg, before they have worked mischief; and public justice is spared the necessity of inflicting severe punishment. But in fact there is no method of restraining the abuse of the press previous to publication which does not control the use the imperfect civilisation of Austria and Spain bear witness to this truth. The government of France, without sanctioning so strict a system of ignorance as that of Spain, refused to allow publication without restraint. But the mitigated prohibitions of the French censors in some degree contributed to spread the false notions which ob

tained vogue at the beginning of their revolution. Everything might be attacked by an equivocal jest, although nothing could be combated by direct reasoning; and the able writers of the last century soon found that the best institutions were as open to a sneer as the grossest abuses. General declamation and affected sentiment were allowed, till the opinions of men fell into general confusion. At length the throne was shaken, the altar sapped, and a mine ready to burst under their foundations, before anyone had had a fair opportunity of urging an argument in their behalf. The policy of England has been, since the Revolution, completely the reverse both of the Spanish and the French. During the reign of Elizabeth, as we have seen, the most severe punishments were awarded to libellers. During the reign of James I. and the early part of Charles I., a censorship was established by means of a License Act. Cromwell adopted the same policy, which was continued by Charles and James. The License Act of the latter expired in 1694, and has never been renewed. The government of England thus deliberately, not in the heat of the revolution itself, but without clamour, without affectation, without fear, and at once, adopted a free press. The principle then sanctioned is, that as speaking and writing and printing are things in themselves indifferent, every person may do as he pleases, till, by writing what is calumnious or seditious, he offend against the laws. That a great advantage is afforded to personal liberty by the existence of a free press, is what no man can doubt. Reflection may convince us that this liberty is also beneficial to the community at large. Genius can never exert its powers to their full extent when its flight is limited and its direction prescribed. Truth can never be ascertained when all discussion is regulated by those who hold the reins of government,

to whom the discovery of truth is not always acceptable. Neither is it true, as some foreigners imagine, that no government can withstand the daily attacks of the press. Men know when they are prosperous, and although they love to grumble at their rulers, the most brilliant rhetoric will not persuade a nation already in possession of liberty that it is wise to risk a civil war in order to obtain a change in the form of government. Popular clamour, if it be no more than clamour, is more noisy than formidable, and by a wise, beneficent government may be safely endured. The slanderous whisper of the Emperor of Rome's courtiers was ten times more dangerous to a good minister than is the angry hubbub of the King of England's people.

The right of petition is another right by which men are enabled to express their opinions, and to set forth their grievances. When Charles II. was engaged in a contest with his Parliament, this right was much discountenanced; and it was therefore declared by the Bill of Rights-That it is the right of the subject to petition the King, and that all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.' This right is still a very important

one.

The rights we have now been stating, viz. those of printing and petitioning, invest the people with no actual power or authority. But they are · of infinite importance in controlling and guiding the executive power. The influence of a free press, however, has never been so thoroughly felt as it is now, and therefore, till I come to recent times, I shall defer any further observation respecting it.

We come next to religious liberty, upon which subject the authors of the Revolution did as much as they could, and by their maxims laid the foundation of much more.

We have seen how little of the spirit of charity and forbearance mixed with the reformation of Henry VIII. It is painful to think that Cranmer continued the same severity during the short reign of Edward, and that an unfortunate woman was burnt for some incomprehensible refinement respecting a mystery of our faith.

When the Papal power was for the second timeoverthrown by the accession of Elizabeth, no progress was made towards the establishment of religious liberty. From this time dates the great schism amongst the English Protestants, known, according to their respective parties, by the names of Puritans and Conformists. A congregation of refugees, settled at Frankfort in the reign of Queen Mary, omitted in their worship the Litany, and some other parts of King Edward's liturgy. A Dr. Coxe arriving there from England, interrupted the service by a loud response, omitted in the new form of prayer. After some contest, and some expedients not quite worthy of the cause of religion, he succeeded in driving his opponents from the place, and establishing the liturgy of Edward. Other congregations, however, had made similar reforms, and when the exiles returned to England there arose an open difference between the Conformists, among whom were Grindal, Parker, &c., and the Puritans, who reckoned among them John Knox, Bale, Fox the author of the Book of Martyrs,' &c. The chief deviations introduced by the Puritans in practice respected the use of the surplice, the cope, the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the communion; but in principle there was a much wider schism. The Conformists acknowledged the Church of Rome as a true church, though corrupted; and they maintained that the King, as supreme head of the Church, had authority to correct all abuses of order and worship. The Puritans abjured the Church of Rome

G