each is at least immeasurably enhanced by calling in aid the other as its natural ally.1

The ancients on free speech and thought.-The liberty to speak and think was confined in early times within narrow limits by the mere mechanical conditions incident to the small audiences on which any one human voice was necessarily spent; and by the difficulties attending the circulation of writings as articles of property.2

1 "English freedom," as Fox observed, "does not depend upon the executive government nor upon the administration of justice, nor upon any one particular or distinct part, nor even upon forms, so much as it does on the general freedom of speech and of writing. Speech ought to be completely free. The press ought to be completely free, when any man may write and print what he pleased, though he is liable to be punished if he abused that freedom. This is perfect freedom. If this is necessary with regard to the press, it is still more so with regard to speech." " "I have never heard of any danger arising to a free state from the freedom of the press or freedom of speech: so far from it I am perfectly clear, that a free state cannot exist without both. It is not the law that is to be found in books that constitutes-that has constituted the true principle of freedom in any country at any time. No, it is the energy, the boldness of a man's mind which prompts him to speak not in private, but in large and popular assemblies, that constitutes, that creates in a state the spirit of freedom. This is the principle which gives life to liberty; without it the human character is a stranger to freedom. As a tree that is injured at the root, with the bark taken off the branches, may live for a while, and some sort of blossom may still remain, but it will soon wither, decay, and perish, so take away the freedom of speech or of writing, and the foundation of all your freedom is gone. You will then fall and be degraded and despised by all the world for your weakness and your folly in not taking care of that which conducted you to all your fame, your greatness, your opulence, and prosperity." —C. J. Fox. H. C. 1795, 32 Parl. Hist. 419.

แ

"Give me but the liberty of the press, and I will give to the minister a venal House of Peers. I will give him a corrupt and servile House of Commons. I will give him the full swing of the patronage of office. I will give him the whole host of ministerial influence. I will give him all the power that place can confer upon him, to purchase up submission, and overawe resistance; and yet, armed with the liberty of the press, I will go forth to meet him undismayed-I will attack the mighty fabric he has raised with that mightier engine. I will shake down from its height corruption, and bury it beneath the ruins of the abuses it was meant to shelter."Sheridan, H. C. (1810), 15 Parl. Deb. 341.

2 The mode in which Atticus used to collect books was by employing his slaves to go and copy them; and copies were thus made also for sale, for the common profit both of the slave and the master,

But when the art of printing was discovered, and it then became apparent, that the audience grew from hundreds to thousands, and the voice penetrated to the market, the barracks, the cloister, the plough, and the loom, and every abode from the palace to the hut, and covered continents instead of one small chamber, governments became perplexed how to deal with this new force, the mischiefs of which were at first only discerned, and these in exaggerated proportions. Even the ancients indulged in some maxims which had an air of liberality and foresight. But this was chiefly because the difficulty to be confronted had not then really arisen. Their thoughts, therefore, on all that concerns the liberty of the press are trifling and inadequate. They had a vague notion that people might think and speak very much as they liked, but this was coupled with the certain knowledge, that the audiences must be always small, and incapable of leading to combination and resistance without their beginnings and stages being visible and easily checked. Their practice as to blasphemy will be found quite as intolerant as those of any of their successors, and their false gods were protected as jealously as if they were true.

Early restrictions as to number of printers.—At first printing was treated like the making of sal ammoniac, and apprentices were cautioned not to lay open the principles to the unfaithful. After the invention of printing came to be understood and practised, governments at first bethought themselves of the expedients in their power wherewith to controul it; and two things at first seemed wise and indispensable. The first was to limit the number of printers; and the second was to see, that nobody

-Middleton's Cicero, 136. In the time of our Henry II. a like office was done by monks, scribes, and illuminators.

1 It was remarked that Augustus was the first to keep his eye on defamatory libels, owing to Cassius Severus being accustomed under feigned names to deal freely with public characters. Yet Tiberius used to say that in free states both the tongue and the mind must be free.-Suet. Tib. It was said that in Trajan's time, as his highest praise, every man might think what he pleased, speak what he thought, and that the only persons who were hanged were the spies and informers, who used in former reigns to make it their trade to discover crimes.-Tacit. Hist. b. i.

* Becket v Denison, 17 Parl. Hist. 958.

presumed to publish anything, until an archbishop or high functionary first satisfied himself that the foundations of the terrestrial economy would not be shaken to their centre by the explosion. And these crude and barbarous notions were mixed up with a still more confused and half understood theory of copyright. The period of the Reformation opened up men's minds and made them think, and after thinking they published their thoughts plentifully. The statute of 1533 recited that a marvellous number of printed books had been brought into the realm since the statute allowed aliens to print them as well as import them, and to encourage native industry foreign bound books were thenceforth prohibited to be imported or bought from foreigners; and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, and two Chief Justices were to regulate the price of books, as well as of the binding of them. The Crown seemed to assume as a matter of course, that no subject had any business to think or publish his thoughts without its license. Hence Edward VI. appointed by patent a printer who was to print and sell all Latin, Greek, and Hebrew books, as well as all others that might be commanded, and penalties were denounced against infringers.3 In Queen Elizabeth's time there was still a complaint of the excessive number of presses. In 1637 the Star Chamber, which

1 "The press being introduced into this country by Henry VII., an opinion prevailed that it was part of the prerogative of the king to govern it, and that opinion was not eradicated for many ages. This was perhaps not unnatural, the press being introduced by the king and the art of printing being by his munificence communicated to his subjects, and he having at first licensed certain persons only to print.".”—Scarlett, arg., R. v Burdett, L. Abing. Mem. 297.

In

21 Rich. 3 c. 9; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 15. This latter statute was supposed to be really aimed at keeping out the Lutheran books. France also, in 1533, the Sorbonne petitioned Francis I. that to save religion it was necessary to abolish for ever, by a stern edict, the art of printing.-Rapport, Lib. de la Presse, 1879.

3 4 Herbert and Ames, 1 (Dibd. ed.)

4 In 1585 Whitgift obtained an order of the Queen that there should be no printing-press except in London and the two Universities; and no book should be printed that had not been read by the Archbishop or Bishop of London or their chaplain.-1 Neal's Purit. 369; Strype's Whitgift, 223. And yet private and travelling presses were not unknown at that time, as was obvious from the trial of Knightley, who favoured the Puritan party in attacking the Church of England.-2 Camden, Eliz. 550; 1 St. Tr. 1271. It was near the

never hesitated to assume the most preposterous powers, issued a decree to regulate the press. Those who printed books, not being qualified, were to be sentenced to whipping, the pillory, and imprisonment. Books imported were first to be examined by the archbishop and bishop, who had power to seize all seditious, schismatical, or offensive productions. The Long Parliament, in 1645, following in the same track, passed a most tyrannical ordinance to repress disorders in printing, and they authorised doors to be broken open day or night to search for unlicensed. printing-presses, authors, and binders. At last all this floating extravagance and confusion of ideas came to a head not long afterwards. The Licensing Act of 1662 was an elaborate exposition of the views of the legislature with regard to the position of the press, and nearly every point of its crude details has since been reversed. This Act was

middle of the eighteenth century before printing, which had previously been confined chiefly to London, became generally practised in country towns.-Gent's Life, 20.

1 The Licensing Act of 1662 prohibited the publication of seditious and heretical books, pamphlets, and papers. No person was to print any book, unless it was first entered with the Stationers' Company, and unless duly licensed and authorised. And this license, if the book was concerning the laws, was to be granted by the Lord Chancellor or a chief justice: if concerning history, by a Secretary of State: if concerning divinity, physic, philosophy, or science, by the Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London, with a saving in favour of the Universities for their own publications. The license was to be printed at the beginning of the book. No book was to be imported without episcopal license. No person was to print or import books without the consent of the person who, by virtue of letters patent granted or assigned, or by virtue of an entry in the Stationers' Company's books, or in the University register book, has the right solely to print. No person was to print a book without putting his name thereto, and being liable to declare the name of the author also. No one was to sell books without a license of the bishop, and without serving an apprenticeship. No one was to keep a printing-press, or even to make one, or to make type, without first giving notice to the Stationers' Company. There were to be no more than twenty master printers, and these were to be licensed by the archbishop or bishop, and each was to be bound in a recognisance of 3007. None was to keep more than two printing-presses without license. The master printers were bound to employ all journeymen printers, except foreigners, on application; and if the latter refused to work, they were to have three months imprisonment. A king's messenger, under a warrant of a Secretary of State or Master of the Stationers' Company, might, with a constable, at

continued by various Acts, the last of which, 1 James II. c. 17, § 15, continued it for seven years, from 24th June, 1685, and to the end of the next session of Parliament; and accordingly in 1692 it finally expired.1

The rule meanwhile was boldly laid down and acted on, that the king at common law had a prerogative to govern the printing-press, and that this was necessary to religion and the conservation of the public peace, and that no author could publish any book without first getting his license; the doctrine being, that the printing of a book was like building a castle, and no man could make seamarks or beacons without license,2 and "a book might rouse as great a dust and alarm as a beacon." 3 And it was solemnly declared, that matters of state, and things that concern the government, could not safely be left to any man's liberty to print. In 1666 an Order in Council directed the Stationers' Company to seize and deliver up to the Secretary of State all copies of Buchanan's History of Scotland as pernicious to monarchy and injurious to his Majesty's blessed progenitors.

Restrictions on printers as to keeping copies and putting their names on papers. It thus appears that when printing came to be first practised in this country,

any time he thought fit, search all houses and shops, except the houses of peers, where they suspected books to be printed and bound, or presses to be kept without license, and seize books and offenders, and put the latter in prison till trial. And if the searchers found a book which they thought contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, or against the Government, such book was to be taken to the Bishop or a Secretary of State.-14 Ch. II. c. 33.

By one of these Licensing Acts of 1665 every printer was bound to present three copies to the Stationers' Company, one for the king, and one for each of the two Universities.-17 Ch. II. c. 4.

1 It took half a century after the Licensing Act expired before legal authors and judges outgrew the practice of soliciting and giving this license. Thus in case of Viner's Abridgement, published in 1746 (24 vols.) there are thirteen judges who formally sign a certificate allowing the printing and publishing.

In France the ideas of the legislature were similar. M. Sabot found in his statistical researches that from 1660 to 1756 no less than 869 authors, printers, and booksellers had been arrested and confined in the Bastille for publishing works against the king, government, religion, and morals.-Rapport, Lib. de la Presse, 1879. 2 Carter, 89; 18 Ch. II. (1666). 31 Mod. 258. 4 Kennett's Register, 176.