Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

66

66

abode, as are also their printers and pub- | the subject in this light, would not rather lishers. No press can send out any thing prefer the establishment of a Censorship privately, for no man must have a press over our press, than submit to the arbitrary and types without a previous declaration controul by which it is now regulated? I and enregisterment. All the printing observe from the Report of the French presses are now enregistered; and not Deputies, which I have given below, that even a ballad can be published without very incorrect notions prevail in France, bearing the printer's name, under a ter as to the extent of the Liberty of the Press rible penalty in case of disobedience of the enjoyed in this country. The reporter. law. If the author of a newspaper only speaks of the restrictions which exist here, remove his residence from one street to as having been confined only to the year another, or even from one door to another, 1635, when the influence of the Star® he is compelled to go to the Stamp-office Chamber was paramount to all law; or to and give information; nay, even swear to those periods in our history when it was the fact. In the case of an author, who necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus may have expended several hundred Act. He says, that "when the English, pounds for paper, and printing a work," in 1686, published the Declaration of the punishment for libel becomes pecu- Rights, they did not condescend to stipuliarly severe and unjust. The book is late for the liberty of the press, regarding produced by the labour perhaps of many "it as a right innate in every people years. He writes it with the most bene- having a Constitution, and a representavolent intentions; he dreams of nothing "tive Legislature: And since the true but the benefit of mankind, and an ade-" establishment of English liberty, the quate remuneration for his time and " press has never been fettered; and it is trouble; he lays out his last shilling to by its freedom that the balance of the pay for advertising it; when, just at the" Constitution has always been sustained, moment he consoles himself with the idea" and a spirit excited eminently national." of reaping the sweets, the iron hand of It is very true, that our forefathers repower lays hold of him, and, in the formgarded the liberty of the press as a natural of a criminal information for libel, sup-right, of which no power on earth could presses his book, roos him of all his pros-legally deprive them. Neither do we at pects, con ignз him to ruin and disgrace; and, if he is so unfortunate, which is very likely, to have contracted any debts, to a prison for li.. Add to this, a numerous family of il tren depending upon him for existence, and you have as complete a picture of human wretchedness and misery as can possibly be conceived. Now a this wold be prevented, if the law of libel were so defined as to be within the re ch of common capacities; as to be un-unfettered, seem to have taken their lesson derstand by every man, at least, who is cape of writing a book or a new paper. In nit y upe ior, indeed, would a licenser of ti sse, in this country, to a prac t'ce atted nt with so many dreadful can sequence, and which has not even thepocritical adulation is heaped upon their semblance of a law in all our constitutiona. code, to give it the least coun e sance, Could an author go with his MSS. in bi hand to the Censor, he would be certain that all passages dangerous to his liberty would be expunged. At least, if any strong passages were permitted to remain, he would continue secure from, the grasp of corruption, under the license of the person legally appointed to sanction the publication of his work. Who, on viewing

с

this day give up the point. Even our newspapers, the most devoted in the ser vice of corruption, are continually extol ling the great freedom, the unbounded liberty, which we enjoy in this respect.— But, alas! this is mere vapour and bubble blowing. It is a representation of the shadow only, the substance, as I have already shewn, being no where to be found. Those who talk of the English press being

from that portion of it, such as the Times and the Courier, in which the most indiscriminate and virulent abuse is indulged, of all who differ in opinion with them as to politics; while the most fulsome and hy

own creatures, however infamous their principles, and however obnoxious their characters This mistake, however, as to the extent of liberty enjoyed with us, fully warrants the supposition, that the French Legislatures have correct ideas as to what constitutes real liberty of the press. Conceiving that the press is no way fettered here; believing that we enjoy it to its fullest extent as an innate right; persuaded that its influence has excited

employed. He had now to deliver the Report of that Committee.

amongst us a spirit eminently national. | Article of our Consitutional Charter" and Viewing the subject, I say, as these Le-it was in the careful examination of this gislators appear to do, in this advantageous plan that their Committee had been long light, there is little danger of their adopting a law which would prove injurious to the country. Though nothing distinctly ap- which man had received from his Creator; The faculty of thought was the most noble pears stated in the Report, as to the defi- but it must remain imperfect, had he not nition of the law of libel; and this may also the power and the right of expressing arise from the Report itself having been his thoughts, either by fugitive sounds, or imperfectly given, yet I entertain no doubt by permanent signs. To speak and to write, that, with the Constitution of 1795 before velopement of the same faculty, the use of therefore, were only the exercise and dethem, and their own profound judgment, a gift of nature. they will come to such a determination as nise and respect that right, but does not A charter may recogwill render the use of the press beneficial confer it. It comes from a loftier source. to all parties in the State, and a terror-Before the invention of the art of printing, only to the Despot and the depraved. But rather than see the press of France in a state similar to what it is here, I would give the preference to the establishment of a Censorship there, even though it were as rigorous as that which existed under the reign of the Emperor Napoleon.

REPORT ON THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

CHAMBER OF DEputies, Aug. 1.-M. Raynouard began by observing, that before solemn laws had proclaimed the Liberty of the Press in France. a just and wise toleration there favoured the publication of writings, which the severity of the censorship would have repressed, or of which the authors would have refused to appear before its tribunal. The Government only yielded to the irre sistible force of public opinion; and the condescension of the Ministers of the King was an homage paid to the progress of knowledge, and the authority of reason.-In 1788, the Parliament of Paris solicited this Liberty of the Press, "saving the right of repressing reprehensible works, according to the exigency of the case." -After the storms of many political revolutions, which have at least left the French the counsels of experience, and the lessons of calamity. Louis the Desired, recalled to the throne of his ancestors, has recognised the wish of the nation which demanded the liberty of the press, as one of the bases on which the social edifice was henceforward to rest. The King, on considering the plan which was proposed to him, pronounced that one of the guarantees of the liberal Constitution which he was resolved to adopt, shall be-" The Liberty of the Press respected, saving the necessary precautions for the public tranquillity. The 8th Article of the Constitution in consequence declares, "The French have the right of publishing and printing their opinions, while conform ing to the laws which must repress the abuses of that liberty." His Majesty's Mi- | nister for the Interior had since presented the plan of a law on the subject, which he called, "The Necessary Complement of the

no law appears to have forbidden or em of writings; the profession of copyist was, barassed the multiplication and circulation however, so common, it became easy to re produce, in very great number, copies of a diatribe or a satire. Since the invention of printing, that fortunate means of multiplying writings, requiring considerable mechanic apparatus, and the employment of workmen, the operations of the art remain under the thus it became easy to stop the communieye and hand of the police; and because ceived that they could arrogate the right to cation of thought, Governments have condo so. Booksellers, also fearing compe tition, often obtained from Popes, Emperors, and different Kings, exclusive privileges for the sale of works in their dominions.--For a considerable period of time, books of all kids circulated in France, without the Government thinking to subject them to any previous examination. Our ancestors certaily enjoyed the liberty of the press.— Under the reign of Francis I. religious controversies beginning to disturb France, the Parliament of Paris declared, that the Faculty of Theology of the University had the right of judging new books in regard to orthodoxy; but most commonly this examination did not take place till after pub lication. In 1554 this Faculty published a list of the books which it had prohibited, and of which it was the duty of Government to prevent the circulation, these books being printed.-Almost all the theological books printed since the middle of the 16th century, contained the imprimatur of two doctors. As to other works they were at that period rarely subjected to previous examination. Louis XII, it is true, directed that the Chancellor should examine all new books; but he granted the express privilege of ex• emption from censure to certain authors whom he judged worthy of confidence. In 1699 Telamaque, a work which was supposed to contain so many attacks upon authority, Twenty-four years afterwards, (i, e, in 1723) was printed at Paris with the King's privilege. another production could not be printed in France. This was the Heuriade, which was filled with allusions to the glory of the French

Having made these preliminary observations, M. Raynouard next proceeded to the discussion of the plan of the law presented by the Minister. He quoted that part of it which went to establish a previous censor

arms, and to the good Henry the father of his people.-Between the publication of these two celebrated works might, perhaps, we fixed the period of the establishment of that previous censorship, which fortified different works with the seal of its approbation.-Inship appointed by the King, and by which, every country, however, where civil and if, in the opinion of two censors, a work political liberty is established on fundamental contained any thing libellous, contrary to laws, the citizens ought necessarily to enjoy good morals, or the public tranquillity, its the liberty of the press, which is its first and printing should be stayed; giving, at the surest guardian. The agents of authority same time, an appeal from the author to a always made it a sort of duty to extend and Committee of the two Legislative Bodies, aggrandise the power of their master; they who might, if they saw cause, reverse the dehoped thus to strengthen their own authority. cision. The establishment of this previous This excess of devotedness always threatened censure excited alarm, and appeared to him the liberties of a nation. What, then, were incompatible with the liberty of the press, the means of confining them within the limits that right which was secured by the Charter. which the laws prescribed? There was only The means also of repairing the injustice or one: it was prompt and effectual; it was the error of the Censors were equally illusory. liberty of the press, which at once, without Sometimes the whole recess of a Session must shock or danger, instructed both the mo- expire, before an author could exercise his narch and the nation; which summoned right of complaint; and the stoppage of a before the tribunal of public opinion the work ordered during one of our sessions, errors of a minister, and the crimes of his could not be decided upon till the opening agents, thus checking the mischief in the of the next. What reparation, in the mean bud, and preventing the greater mischief of time, was the author to receive, whose its consequences. We may be told that the work was unjustly delayed? None whatassiduous zeal of the great bodies of the ever; and yet it was often of great importState will prevent the violation of public ance to the honour or the fortune of a citirights; but these bodies are not always as- zen, that his work should appear at a certain sembled to exercise that useful vigilance. determinate period. What punishment also What is to be done during the recess of their was to be inflicted on the injustice of the sittings? How was a great injustice to be ar- Censors? There was none. What guarantee rested before its consummation; or a per- could be found in their fear of being repronicious measure before its execution? Was bated; for even if their decisions were reit not only by giving to just and wise recla- versed, what security was there for the conmations that rapid publicity which denounced demnation being public? But were their the danger both to the Prince and the peo- acts of injustice even proclaimed and posted ple? And even when the great bodies of the up, still the spirit of party would easily conLegislature were assembled, was it not by ex-sole them for the public disapprobation.ercising the liberty of the press, that useful Besides, would it be difficult to mention adtruths could be submitted to them? And if ministrations where excess of zeal, though they acted unjustly or erroneously, what other publicly discouraged by the heads of Governhope remained of bringing them back to inent, might yet be excused, and even resound principles? The Charter subjects the warded in secret? Thus every thing in the Ministers to responsibility; but if they can establishment of a previous censorship ap only be tried for great offences; if they are peared equally unjust both in substance and not otherwise responsible for their errors or form.-The plan of the law, however, proacts of injustice, does it not become a matter posed exceptions. The 1st article allows the of rigorous necessity that those errors and free publication, viz. without previous cenacts of injustice should be pointed out to the sorship, of every work of more than 30 wisdom of the Monarch, the investigation of sheets, which form 480 pages in 8vo, or 720 the great Bodies of the State, and the judg-in 12mo. The 2d article grants equal liberty ment of public opinion? And how, other wise, can the citizens successfully exercise the right of petitioning? Are not petitions, on most occasions, the cry of citizens who complain of some act of injustice, or some abuse of authority? What means would remain to them of making themselves heard, of interesting public opinion in their favour, and of enlightening the Members of the Legislature, who must pronounce on their reclamations, if they could not disseminate them by means of priating The liberty of the press is necessary to the beneficial use of the right of petitioning.

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

to writings in dead or foreign languages, to episcopal charges (mandemens), to memorials in law-suits by advocates, and to the mcmoirs of learned societies. Here every one, doubtless, must remark the singularity that foreigners may print and publish their books and pamphlets in France, and find there that liberty of the press which was not promised to them; while the French, to whom the right has been secured by solemn charter, will not enjoy the same favour! The work printed in German, without previous censure, whether at Strasburg, or in any of the Departments where that language is vernacular, may circulate there, and yet cannot

them to declare unanimously, that the plan, of the law, much as it has been proposed, cannot be adopted without some modifications. The question then arose, whether this plan was easily susceptible of amendments, by which it might be corrected, at the same time adopting its principal basis. That basis is previous censorship. On this question the Committee decided by a mere ma

ought not to serve as the basis of the law. Here M. Raynouard recapitulated a variety of reasons that were urged by the partisans of previous censorship: such as, "that it was necessary to watch over and restrain agitators: that journals and pamphlets were the chief cause of our first calamities and civil troubles; that the same causes would produce similar effects; that the English, when circumstances required it, suspended even their Habeas Corpus Act, and for a long time also the exercise of the liberty of the press; that the law proposed was not meant to be perpetual," &c. It appeared, however, said M. Raynouard, that these reasons were by no means sufficient to counterbalance those which demanded the rejection of the

be translated into French, without previous imprimatur! When some just and honour able exceptions were proposed, why not renew the ancient privilege which all academies had in France, not only of publishing their memoirs, but of authori ing by their approbation, the works of their own members, of their correspondents, and of the authors who were competitors for prizes If as the Minister declared in his discourse,jority of voices, that previous censorship "care was taken to exempt all writings whose authors afforded in their character and situation a sufficient guarantee," why was it not thought proper to extend to many others an exception made in favour of ecclesiastics and advocates? Would not Members of the Chamber of Peers or of Deputies, Counsel lors of State, Public Functionaries, Chief Members of the University, of the Chamber of Commerce, and many others, be equally entitled to be included in the number of those who by their character or situation presented sufficient guarantee? By article 9, journals and other periodical writings were not to ap, ear without the sanction of the King. This article, so short and incomplete, was only the more alarming for the liberty of the press. It would have been proper to ex-principle of previous censorship. Let the plain, whether it was only meant to apply to following observations, he said, be present to the establishment of future journals, or you. The liberty of the press is necessary to whether every morning the journalist woul! the right of petition. The representative be obliged to deserve a sanction. We should leaders assemble only at stated periods. The at least have learned how this sauction was liberty of the press can alone compensate the to be obtained, or on what grounds it might dangers of their absence. But a censorship, be refused; whether censors or co editors so far from ensuring this liberty, would were to be appointed, and up to what point, menace its existence, and with it that of civil injurious both to public and private rights, and political liberty. Should the censorship those who shall have the direction of the be given to the opponents of Government? journals may exclusively distribute praise Would not this be prejudicial to the respect and blame, or pass judgment on men and due to the Monarch? Should it be given to things, for the purpose of leading astray or the Minister's discretion? Would not this be `putting down public opinion. By article 10, to abandon our free institutions, our check "authors and printers may demand the pre- on the authorities, in short to abandon all to vious examination of their works, and if ap- his discretion? Nay, more; would not this proved, the author and printer are dis-be dangerous for Ministers themselves?— charged from all responsibility, except to These principles are hard to be answered. wards private individuals who may be in But, then, we are brought to the peculiar jured." What an alarming power does this circumstances of the time, and are told, that confer on a couple of censors? In this way even if the censorship were contrary to the the most immoral book, works injurious to charter, it ought to exist for the objects of every public right or institut on, outraging secure government. But are those imaginary even the sacred person of the King himself, dangers to be compared to the real evils of a would be screened from all future enquiry censorship? To suspend the liberty of the The author would be freed from all respon- press, is to suspend the Constitution. Have sibility, because two censors may have accord-circumstances changed, since its liberty was ed their, perhaps, guilty approbation. But at what period, or in what country, have Magistrates ever been prohibited to exercise the rights of public justice, notwithstanding the imprimatur of doctors or censors? The 22d article, declaring that the law shall be reviewed within three years, announces sufficiently that it is not meant to be a temporary, but a definitive law; and, besides, it has appeared to many, that the period of revision was too distant. These different motives, which have had more or less weight with the Members of the Committee, bave determined

[ocr errors]

proclaimed by the King? Doubtless they haye, but then they have changed for the better; the public affections have rallied with increasing strength round the throne. For months together have we not now enjoyed the full liberty, nay, the license of the press; and what evil has followed? What writings have troubled the public tranquillity? Has it not been useful in preventing agitation? Has it not produced inferences, even on the present subject, which ought to and must influence our decision? Doubtless there have been times, when the circulation

of pamphlets and journals was dangerous Star Chamber, in 1642, retained for its own but their virulence was less the cause than objects certain of the restrictions, I shall the effect of the disorders of those times. not say that the religious quarrels or the But every Frenchman must see, that the civil struggles of the English offered its whole spirit of things has changed. Anarchy excuse; but I will say, that the Parliament was publicly preached up. A transitory Go-in that day of calamity and trouble, availed vernment shewed its want of moral and phy-itself of that terrible arm of censorship sical force. It had no hold on public opi- against the royal partisans, as the latter had nion. Are the same excesses to be ever used it against the public liberty. Under dreaded again? Have we not now tribunals Cromwell there was no liberty of the press. strong enough-penal laws, and may they It would, probably, have saved the life of not be strengthened if found wanting? If a Charles. When the Royal Family returned, fool should be found to put his name to a how fortunate for it would have been that libel on the Government, what licensed prin- liberty its wise and generous advice might ter would give up his press to him? Would have saved his family from the catastrophe not he know his exposure to capital punish- under the Second James. Even James might ment? and how could this black libel be cir- have escaped his misfortunes, if he could culated? Besides, all restraints on public have been told that his religious and political rights ought to be of a provisional nature. despotism was alienating the hearts of his But the yoke of censorship once fixed on, best subjects. But the liberty of the prest what can shake it off? Is it not notorious, was not in existence to tell him this, and he that at the first real danger, we are deter-knew his danger only when it was too late.mined to invest Government with all the Finally, when the English, in 1688, published necessary force? But ought the welfare of the Declaration of Rights, they did not conthe nation to be sacrificed to empty terrors? descend to stipulate for the Liberty of the The journals are feared. How? The Go- Press, regarding it as a right inuate in every vernment has hitherto made no complaint of people having a Constitution, and a reprethose already established, though they have sentative Legislature. And since the true almost entirely shaken off the yoke of censor- | establishment of English liberty, the press ship. Does it fear more those which are to has never been fettered, and it is by its freebe established in future? But may not the dom that the balance of the Constitution has undertakers of journals be put under the been always sustained, and a spirit excited same obligations as the printers? May not eminently national.-It has been said, that sufficient pecuniary security be required of we have not that species of national spirit those persons in the first instance? This which ought to precede the liberty of the answers the fines. May we not have the press. Let the effect of the press to form signature of the licensed proprietor, and this one be tried. But will the censorship prevent answer personal convictions? May not a law the publication of clandestine libels in fodetermine the suspension or abolition of a reign countries?-Let us be allowed to use journal, subjecting the proprietors to severe the language of a distinguished writer, speakor even capital punishments; and will they ing of the advantages derived from the freethen expose themselves? At this moment dom of the press in England. (Vide Picture the establishment of a journal is extremely of Great Britain, v. ij.) Such is in fact the expensive; large sums must be laid out fortunate effect of the precedence of publibefore the requisite circulation can be pro- cation and public discussion, that, in every cured those great literary speculations are concern of State, Ministers are compelled, always the work of subscriptions, and will however feeble their personal understandings, the subscribers be likely to compromise their or dark their views, to adopt the course most fortune? It is supposed that the British | advantageous to the State. Their interest, Government has felt itself in an alarming as much as their glory, compels them to state whenever it has found it necessary to gather round then all the talents of the suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. But this Nation. But is England the only country suspension prejudiced the rights of only a that has thus benefitted, or is it unknown few individuals. If the Government abused how many other countries have shared these the measure, the press was the safeguard of advantages which are held up to us? But the people. It is true, that the exercise of must not this censorship carry to foreign this right was formerly restrained among the presses the employment which would naturalEnglish. But by whom, and when? First, ly fall to our's. The trade must be affected. by an ordinance of the Star Chamber. And Thus, Gentlemen, the censorship is at once what was that Star Chamber? Was it a tri- unjust and dangerous. We will now prove bunal established by the Kings of England, it unconstitutional. What is the free publito secure the just prerogative of the Crown?cation of our opinions, in other words, the The limitations of the Star Chamber on the press, particularly in 1635, might be actually considered as attacks on the liberty of the nation, and were probably among the principal causes of disaffection to Charles I.--If the Parliament, after having abolished the

:

Liberty of the Press? "The Liberty of the Press," says Blackstone, “consists not in exempting publications from punishments after they are produced, but in allowing no restriction on them before." But the Minis ter himself tells us this without our turning

« PreviousContinue »