S3S 
 
 ir 
 
,"1 i-i '^ 
 
 SCHUYLER 
 

THE LIBERTY OF THE 
 PRESS IN THE AMERI- 
 CAN COLONIES Before 
 the Revolutionary War. 
 
 With Particular Reference to Con- 
 ditions in the Royal Colony of New 
 York. 
 
 BY 
 
 LIYIINGSTON ROWE SCHUYLER, M.A., B.D., Ph.D. 
 
 Sometime Scholar in Ecclesiastical History 
 
 Church University Board of Regents 
 
 Instructor in History, College of the City of New York. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 THOMAS WHITTAKER 
 
 2 & 3 BIBLE HOUSE 
 
 1905- 
 

 Copyright, igo^ 
 
 by 
 
 Livingston Rowe Schuyler. 
 
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the 
 requirements for the Degree of Doctor 
 of Philosophy^ hy the Graduate School 
 of New York University, in 1901).. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE PRESS IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE NINETEENTH 
 
 CENTURY. 
 
 Page 
 
 At first the Church controlled all printing — In England at the 
 Reformation the State assumed this work — The establish- 
 ment of monoplies by patent — The Star Chamber under 
 Elizabeth and its work — Under James I. — Abolished by the 
 Long Parliament — Milton's ''Areopagitica" — The Li- 
 censing Acts — How it Ended — Courts assume control — 
 The principle of criminal libel — Function of the jury — 
 Fox's bill of 1792— The law of libel to-day 1 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE PRESS IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 The first press, 1639— Attitude of the Government— Samuel 
 Green and his press — First licensers appointed — General 
 Court acts in a Kempis case— Sewall's license— Gov. 
 Andros continues licensing system — "Publick Occur- 
 rences"— Relation of the Clergy to the press— Increase 
 Mather vs. Bartholomew Green— Case of Benjamin Gray- 
 Increase Mather vs. James Franklin— Trouble over the 
 Rhode Island letter in Courant— J. Franklin finally forbid- 
 den to print— The Courant and Gov. Shute— Case ot 
 Thomas Fleet in 1741— His trouble with the Clergy— Case 
 of the Fowle brothers, 1754— The Worcester Instructions 
 —Isaiah Thomas and his trouble in Nova Scotia— The 
 Scaevola letter— Case of Edes and Gill—Position of the 
 Crown at this time ' 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE PRESS IN PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 ^Ym. Bradford, 1685— His troubles— Declares jurors are jud.^es 
 of the law as well as of the facts— Goes 'to N. Y.— Andrew 
 Bradford founds the '' Mercury "—In trouble with Council 
 —The Cassius Letter— Rev. Dr. Smith and the German 
 Press— Wm. Bradford the younger and the Pennsylvania 
 Journal— The Hughes case— The Bradford family and the 
 liberty of the press " 23 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE PRESS IN NEW YORK. 
 
 Gov. Lovelace and printing — Gov. Fletcher brings Wm. Brad- 
 ford to N. Y. — Dispute over the Muster Rolls — Wallace's 
 Tribute to Bradford— Trial of Col. Nicholas Bayard — 
 Samuel ]\Iulford and his quarrels with the Governor and 
 Assembly — Outcome — The Zenger Trial and Its Im])ort- 
 ance — Argument of Bradford successfully asserted by 
 Hamilton — Cadwallader Colden and his pamphlet — Gov. 
 Clinton and the Remonstrance — The Address — Case of 
 Hugh Gaine — The Parker-Watkins article — Rev. Mr. Wat- 
 kins ' explanation — Samuel Townsend and the "Neutral 
 French" — Letter of "Freedom" — Colden 's testimony to 
 the state of public opinion — The pamphlet "On the Con- 
 duct of C. Colden" — Paper signed "Son of Liberty" — 
 John Lamb — Alexander McDougall and the Assembly. ... 34 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PRESS IN THE SOUTHERN COLONIES. 
 
 Peculiar i^osition occupied by the press — Sir William Berkeley — 
 Case of John Buckner— Conditions in Va. — In South Caro- 
 lina — Peter Timothy and the clergy — Thomas Powell's 
 contests with the Council 68 
 
Vll 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 1. — Amount of control exercised by the Governor, as the King's 
 representative, varied in the different colonies. 
 
 II. — Attitude assumed by the colonies themselves through their 
 elected representatives was different. 
 
 III. — There was a gradual but real advance towards freedom of 
 discussion as far as regards ordinary matters. 
 
 IV. — And to a slight extent as regards political matters not af- 
 fecting the interests of the Crown. 
 
 V. — But almost none in political matters affecting the Crown. 
 
 VI. — Influence of classes on the press, e. g., the Clergy. 
 
 VII. — The class reached by the press directly was small in num- 
 bers and generally speaking conservative in temper. 
 
 VIII. — On the attitude assumed by the press towards authority, 
 and the part taken by it in movements leading up to the 
 Revolution. 
 
 IX. — At the close of the period under discussion there was no 
 liberty of the press as we now understand the term. 
 
 X. — The press in the State and the Federal Constitutions 72 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 I.— The Genealogy of the Bradford Family 82 
 
 II.— Quotations from ''THE FORUM" 83 
 
 INDEX 84 
 
 VITA 86 
 
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WITH 
 PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN THE ROYAL COLONY 
 OF NEW YORK. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE PRESS IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 
 
 IMMEDIATELY on the introduction of printing the Church assumed 
 towards it an attitude at once intimate and watchful. Since all that 
 affected the welfare of the mind and the health of the soul was of 
 importance to the Church, it was not at all surprising that the demand 
 was at once made that nothing should be put forth by the press save that 
 which had received the sanction — the " Imprimatur " — of the Diocesan 
 authority, or later of the official delegated by the personal representative 
 of the Papacy. The rules that were laid down for the direction of the 
 printer were full and explicit, and no resistance seems to have been at- 
 tempted. At the period of the Reformation in England, the power of 
 supervision over all forms of printing passed from the hands of the 
 Church to the civil authority. This followed naturally from the theory 
 that the King, as Head of the Church, inherited all rights of oversight in 
 matters of opinion and morals formerly pertaining to the Pope, and exer- 
 cised in England by the Bishops in his name. The Henrician and Eliza- 
 bethan Bishops still gave the " Imprimatur," but it was now as represent- 
 ing the King. The fact of publication without authority was in itself a 
 crime deserving of severe punishment.^ 
 
 A further step in the restriction of printing was the establishment (in 
 line with the general tendencies of the time), of monopolies by patent. 
 In 1557 the Stationers' Company was formed of ninety-seven London 
 stationers, and to it was committed the sole right to print books licensed 
 by the proper authority.^ As representing the Sovereign, the Star Cham- 
 ber exercised a supervision over the manner in which the law was carried 
 out; in 1559 it ordered that all books were to read by a Bishop or a mem- 
 
 1 Majr, Constitutional History II, p. 103. 
 
 2 Collier, Essay on the Law of Patents, and General History of Monopolies. 
 
2 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 ber of the Privy Council before going to the press, and in 1586 gave 
 permission for a printing press to be set up in each University, the Hcenser | 
 in this case being the Vice Chancellor. In the same year the Star Cham- * 
 ber ordered that all books were to be read and licensed by the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, with the exception of law books 
 where were to be read by the Chief Justice of either Bench or the Lord 
 Chief Baron. 
 
 Proclamations issued by Queen Elizabeth from time to time,^ 
 indicate the difficulty found in enforcing this monopoly and requirement of 
 licensing, and a proclamation issued by Elizabeth ^ against " bringing 
 into the realm unlawful books " indicates that the statute of Henry VIII ^ 
 repealing the permission given in the reign of Richard III to import 
 books from abroad ^ was being systematically disregarded. Attorney- 
 general Popham gives witness to the same effect when in his speech before 
 the Star Chamber in the presecution of Sir R. Knightley and others he 
 says, " Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, in her great wisdom, hath issued 
 proclamations that no pamphlets or treatises should be put in print but 
 such as should first be seen and allowed; and further, lest that were not 
 sufficient, she ordained that no printing should be used anywhere but in 
 London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Notwithstanding all this served not, 
 but they would print in corners and spread abroad things unprinted: 
 wherefore Her Majesty set forth a proclamation in anno 25 that all 
 Brownist books, and such other seditious books should be suppressed 
 and burnt." ' 
 
 The Star Chamber continued to exercise control over printing during 
 the reign of James I, but with increasing difficulty, not lessened by the 
 arbitrary and cruel ways in which it acted towards those whom it believed 
 to be breaking its rules and regulations. The flood of books printed 
 abroad continued into the reign of Charles I, and in 1637 we find a Star 
 Chamber decree, " for reducing the number of master-prmters, and pun- 
 ishing all others that should follow the trade, and for prohibiting as well 
 the impression of all new books without license, and of such as have been 
 licensed formerly without a new one, as the importation of all books in 
 the English tongue, printed abroad, and of all foreign books whatever, 
 
 3 12 Eliz. 15 Eliz. i8 Eliz. 2i Eliz. 25 Eliz. 26 Eliz. 31 Eliz and 43 Eliz. 
 
 4 II Eliz. 
 
 5 25 H. VIII, c. 15, Sect. I. 
 
 6 I R. Ill, c. 9. Sect. 12. 
 
 7 State Trials, Vol. I, p. 1263. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 3 
 
 till a true catalogue has been presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 and the Bishop of London, and the books themselves had been received 
 by their chaplains, or other learned men of their appointment, together 
 with the masters and wardens of the Stationers' Company." A printer 
 disobeying this order was to be fined, disabled from printing thereafter 
 and the printing press forfeited. 
 
 The quarrel between Charles I and the Long Parliament resulted in 
 the abolition of the Star Chamber, but the only result, as far as the press 
 was concerned, was a change in masters, the Crown giving place to 
 Parliament. From time to time orders were issued by the Parliament ^ 
 similar in tone to those of the Star Chamber. One dated June 14, 1643, 
 directs that " no book, pamphlet, paper, nor part of any such book, 
 pamphlet, or paper, shall from henceforth be printed, bound, stitched, or 
 put out to sale, by any person or persons whatsoever unless the same be 
 first approved and licensed under the hands of such persons as both, or 
 either, of the Houses, shall appoint for licensing of the same, and be 
 entered in the Register Book of the Company of Stationers, according to 
 ancient custom, and the printer thereof shall put his name thereto." It 
 was in reply to this action by Parliament that Milton produced in 1644 his 
 " Areopagitica," that matchless plea for freedom of speech and the 
 liberty of the press. " We should be wary therefore," he writes, " what 
 persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how we spill 
 that seasoned life of man, preserved and stored up in books; since we see 
 a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom ; and 
 if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre, whereof the 
 execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at the 
 ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself; slays an immortality 
 rather than a life." ^ 
 
 But these stirring words fell on ears dulled by the clamor of con- 
 tending battalions. It is true that from time to time a report of proceed- 
 ings in Parliament appeared under the title of " Diurnal Occurrences in 
 Parliament," but in general Parliament was ever ready to crush at its first 
 appearance any spirit considered by the members to be dangerous to con- 
 stituted authority. On Sept. 30, 1647, Parliament, at the instigation of 
 Fairfax, passed an ordinance, " for the better regulation of printing," 
 by which the restrictions were increased and a licenser appointed to whom 
 before printing, all manuscripts had to be presented for approbation. 
 
 8 Mar. 9, 1643; June 14, 1643; Sept. 21, 1647. 
 
 9 Areopagitica, II, 55. 
 
4 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 With the Restoration of Charles II the control of the press was 
 continued by means of the Licensing Act of 1662, passed several times 
 for periods of two years, finally expiring in 1679.^" This was essentially 
 a republication of the Star Chamber order of 1637, but since the Star 
 Chamber no longer existed the scene was changed from that Court to the 
 Old Bailey. In 1679, at the trial of Henry Carr/^ indicted for some 
 passages in a weekly paper, the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs declared it 
 criminal at common law to " write on the subject of government, whether 
 in terms of praise or censure, it is not material; for no man has a right 
 to say anything of government." In 1685, on the accession of James II, 
 the Licensing Act was passed for a period of seven years, and in 1692, 
 (during the reign of William and Mary), it was renewed for one year 
 and the session of the following Parliament. In 1695 the House of 
 Commons refused to again pass It, and in this way the Act expired, never 
 to be renewed, and the press was placed on a footing of equality before 
 the law with all other trades and occupations. And yet, as has been 
 well pointed out by Macaulay,^^ the reasons given by the Parliament for 
 their action did not In any way touch on the question of the rightfulness 
 of a free press, but rather dealt with certain complaints In regard to the 
 provisions of the law and the mode of application. " This paper," he 
 writes, " completely vindicates the resolution to which the Commons had 
 come. But it proves at the same time that they knew not what they were 
 doing, what a power they were calling into existence. They pointed out 
 concisely, clearly, forcibly, and sometimes with a grave irony which is not 
 unbecoming, the absurdities and iniquities of the statute which was about 
 to expire. But all their objections will be found to relate to matters of 
 detail. On the great question of principle, on the question whether the 
 liberty of unlicensed printing be, on the whole, a blessing or a curse to 
 society, not a word Is said. The Licensing Act is condemned, not as a 
 thing essentially evil, but on account of the petty grievances, the exactions, 
 the jobs, the commercial restrictions, the domiciliary visits, which were 
 incidental to it. It Is pronounced mischievous because it enables the 
 Company of Stationers to extort money from publishers, because it 
 empowers agents of the government to search houses under the authority 
 of general warrants, because it confines the foreign book trade to the 
 port of London, because It detains packages of books at the Custom 
 House till the pages are mildewed. The Commons complain that the 
 
 10 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 33; 16 Car. II, c. 8 ; i6 and 17 Car. II, c. 7 ; 17 Car. II, c. 4. 
 
 11 Carr's Case, State Trials VII, 929. 
 
 12 Macaulay, Hist. Eng. Chap. xxi. 
 
ll 
 
 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 5 
 
 amount of the fee which the licensers may demand is not fixed. They 
 complain that it is made penal in an officer of the Customs to open a 
 box of books from abroad, except in the presence of one of the censors 
 of the press. How, it is very sensibly asked, is the officer to know that 
 there are books in the box until he has opened it? " Such were the argu- 
 ments which did what Milton's " Areopagitica " had failed to do. But 
 what we mean to-day by the term, the liberty of the press, is much more 
 than the mere right to print without a previous application to a censor. 
 The position which the press holds in this generation is the result of a 
 slow but steady growth. After the refusal by Parliament to renew 
 the Licensing Act the courts still did their best to prevent the reaping of 
 any benefit from this. Newspaper reporting, and especially the report- 
 ing of Parliamentary debates was frowned on by Bench and Parliament 
 alike. In 1722 the House of Commons passed the resolution "That 
 no printer or publisher of any printed newspaper do presume to insert in 
 any such papers any debates or other proceedings of this house or any 
 committee thereof" and when Edward Cave in 1731 began to publish 
 in his " Gentleman's Magazine " a report of the debates he had to resort 
 to the fiction of a " Senate of Great Lilliput " and even then lived in 
 continual fear of prosecution. 
 
 As time passed Parliamentary reporting came to be tactily recog- 
 nized, but the law of libel still retained all its terrors. Bentham told the 
 truth when he said " Anything which any man for any reason, chooses 
 to be offended with is libel." Lord Mansfield in the case of Henry 
 Sampson Woodfall, prosecuted for publishing a seditious libel, enun- 
 ciated the theory that the work of the jury began and ended with deciding 
 the fact as to whether the accused was or was not responsible for the 
 publication of the matter complained of, the crown, through the court, to 
 decide whether the matter was libellous. For twenty years the question 
 was fought over, and at last in 1791, Fox having changed his views in 
 the matter, introduced his famous bill to amend the law of libel, and in 
 1792 the bill became law. The importance of this act can hardly be 
 overestimated. After stating that " doubts have risen whether on the 
 trial of an indictment or information for the making and publishing any 
 libel, where an issue or issues are joined between the king and the defend- 
 ant or defendants, on the plea of not guilty pleaded it be competent to the 
 jury empanelled to try the same to give their verdict upon the whole 
 matter in issue." It goes on to enact that " the jury may give a general 
 verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter in Issue, and shall 
 
6 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 not be required or directed by the court or judge to find the defendant 
 guilty merely in the proof of the publication by such defendant of the 
 paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to it in the indict- 
 ment or information." In the same spirit Judge Fitzgerald told a 
 jury '^ " You are the sole judges of the guilt or innocence of the defend- 
 ant. The judges are here to give any help they can ; but the jury are the 
 judges of law and fact, and on them rests the whole responsibility." 
 
 Thus the idea of legal restrictions on the press passes away, and the 
 law of libel becomes a law of the press in any case where defamation or 
 false report is charged, and to a jury is committed the task of deciding 
 whether the statement made was justified and proper. As Prof. Dicey 
 aptly puts it,^^ " freedom of discussion is, then, in England, little else 
 than the right to write or say anything which a jury, consisting of twelve 
 shopkeepers, think it expedient should be said or written. . . . Whether 
 in any particular case a given individual is to be convicted of libel depends 
 wholly on their judgment, and they have to determine the questions of 
 truth, fairness, intention, and the like, which affect the legal character of 
 a published statement." 
 
 But this point of view, which is the position in England, and to a 
 large extent in our own land, has not been reached without a struggle, 
 and it is to that struggle, so far as it was carried on in the American 
 Colonies, that we must now turn out attention. 
 
 13 Rex V. Sullivan, 11 Cox. C. C. 52. 
 
 !•* A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, p. 242. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE PRESS IN MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 IT was in this colony of Massachusetts that the art of printing was 
 first exercised on American soil by an Enghsh-speaklng people/ the 
 Reverend Joseph Glover, a clergyman of Sutton in the county of 
 Surrey, England,- having, about the year 1638, collected the money 
 necessary for the purchasing of type and press.^ In 1639 the first book, 
 " The Freeman's Oath " appeared, and towards the work the attitude of 
 the colonial government appears to have been favorable since we learn 
 from the MS. records of the colony that " Att a general Court held 
 at Boston, on the eighth day of the eighth moneth (October) 1641, 
 Steeven Daye being the first that set upon printing. Is graunted three hun- 
 dred acres of land, where it may be convenient without prejudice to any 
 town." 
 
 A second printer of the period was Samuel Green who, some seven- 
 teen years later petitioned the General Court for a grant of land. In 
 regard to which we read, " At the second sessions of the General Court 
 held at Boston the 19th of October, 1658, in answer to the Petition of 
 Samuel Green; of Cambridge, printer. The Courte judgeth It meete for 
 his Encouragement to graunt him three hundred acres of Land where It 
 Is to be found." Apparently it was deemed neither necessary nor expedi- 
 ent at this time to lay any restrictions upon the printer and his press, but 
 a change of sentiment appears in 1662, when,^ after the publication of 
 some books treating religious matters In a way thought to be dangerous, 
 the General Court appointed Capt. Daniel Gookins, one of the Assist- 
 ants, and the Rev. Jonathan Mitchell, the minister of Cambridge, as licen- 
 sers of the press, all printing except as allowed by them being prohibited. 
 A reaction Is evidenced a few months later when on May 27, 1663, the 
 General Court " Ordered that the printing press be at liberty as formerly, 
 
 1 John Winthrop, Hist, of New England, Vol. I, p. 348. 
 
 2 Lechford's MS. Note-book, p. 119. 
 
 3 Major Edward Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence of Sion's Saviour in New Eng- 
 land, London Edition, p. 129. 
 
 4 Thomas Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. I, p. 236. 
 
 [Copyright, 1905, by L. R. Schuyler.] 
 
 7 
 
8 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 till this Court shall take further order, and the late order is hereby 
 repealed." ^ 
 
 This liberty of action was however only temporary and we next find 
 " at a General Court called by order of the Governor, Deputy Governor, 
 and other Magistrates, held at Boston, 19th of October, 1664. For the 
 preventing of irregularyties and abuse to the authority of this country, 
 by the Printing Press, it is ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, 
 that theer shall no Printing Presse be allowed in any Towne within this 
 jurisdiction, but in Cambridge, nor shall any person or persons presume 
 to print any Copie but by the allowance first had and obtayned under the 
 hands of such as this Court shall from tjme to tjme Impower, — The 
 President of the Colledge, Mr. John Shearman, Mr. Jonathan Mitchell 
 and Mr. Thomas Shepheard, or any two of them to survey such Copie 
 or Coppies and to prohibit or allow the same according to this order, — 
 and in case of non-observance of this order, to forfeit the Presse to the 
 Country and be disabled from Vsing any such profession within this juris- 
 diction for the time to come. Provided this order shall not extend to the 
 obstruction of any Coppies which this Court shall Judge meete to order 
 to be published in Print." 
 
 Not long after ( 1667) the General Court interfered in a case where 
 the licensers had given permission to print — " This Court being informed 
 that there is now in the presse reprinting, a book that Imitates of Christ, 
 or to that purpose, written by Thomas Kempis, a popish minister, 
 where in is contayned some things that are lesse safe to be infused 
 amongst the people of this place. Doe comend to the licensers of the 
 Presse the more full revisale thereof, and that in the mean time there be 
 no further progresse in that w^ork."''' On this Thomas Hutchinson 
 remarks," " In a constitution less popular this would have been thought 
 too great an abridgement of the subject's liberty." In 1674 it was 
 ordered " Whereas there is now granted that there may be a Printing 
 Presse elsewhere than at Cambridge, for the better regulation of the 
 Presse it is ordered and enacted that the Revd. Mr. Thomas Thatcher 
 and Revd. Increase Mather of Boston, be added unto the former Licen- 
 sers, and they are hereby empowered to act accordingly." At the death 
 of John Foster, the setting up of whose press in Boston had been the 
 occasion of the order just quoted, it was thought desirable that printing 
 
 f' MS. Records of the Colony, quoted by Thomas Hutchinson, I, 958. 
 « MS. Records of the Colony. 
 7 Hist, of Mass. I, p. 236. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 9 
 
 should be continued in Boston, and Samuel Sewall, although not a printer 
 by profession, was prevailed upon to take up the work. It may be 
 interesting to read the license which he thus received, ^ " Samuel Sewall, 
 at the Instance of some Friends with respect to the accommodation of the 
 Publick, being prevailed with to undertake the Management of the 
 Printing Presse in Boston, late under the command of Mr. John Foster, 
 deceased, liberty is accordingly granted to him for the same by this court, 
 and none may presume to set up any other Presse without the like liberty 
 first granted." Speaking of Gov. Andros and his rule in Massachusetts, 
 Thomas Hutchinson ^ remarks, " One of the first acts of power, after the 
 change of government, was the restraint of the Press. ^" Randolph was 
 the licenser. There was not so much room to complain of this proceed- 
 ing as if the press had been at liberty before. It only changed its keeper, 
 having been long under restraint during the former administration." 
 
 There is in the Colonial State Paper Ofiice in London a copy, the only 
 one now existing of the first issue of the first newspaper to appear in the 
 English colonies. It was published by Benjamin Harris at the London 
 Coffee, Boston, and printed by Richard Pierce, bearing the date of Sept. 
 25, 1690. Without a name unless the words " Publick Occurrences " on 
 the first page was its name, with printing on but three sides of a folded 
 sheet and confining itself to a short summary of Indian and foreign 
 affairs, the paper might seem to be harmless, but it attracted ofl^cial 
 attention at once. It had mentioned the conduct of the war with the 
 Indians and had made some slight remarks on local affairs. For this 
 reason the first issue was also its last. Buckingham ^^ says of it, " Imme- 
 diately upon its publication it was noticed by the legislative authorities. 
 Four days afterwards, they spoke of it as a pamphlet, — stated that it 
 came out contrary to law, and contained ' reflections of a very high 
 nature.' They strictly forbade ' anything in print without license first 
 obtained from those appointed by the government." Perhaps it was to 
 give him something in return for the suppression of his paper that in 
 1692 Harris was appointed " Printer to His Excellency the Governor 
 and Council," a position which he held for two years after which time he 
 returned to England and published a paper there. But although his 
 attempt in America was a failure yet it was at least the beginning, and 
 
 8 Records of the Colony for 1681. 
 
 9 History of Massachusetts, i, 318. 
 
 10 Edward. 
 
 11 Reminiscenses, I, p. i. 
 
lO LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 the treatment he received was the same meted out to each of his succes- 
 sors who dared to be original. 
 
 During the last quarter of the seventeenth century the influence over 
 the publications of the press exercised by the clergy naturally continued 
 to be very great. And in cases where doctrinal matters were in dispute 
 it appears to have been very difficult to find a publisher. In a pamphlet 
 with the title " Gospel Order Revived, Being an Answer to a Book lately 
 set forth by the Reverend Mr. Increase Mather, President of Harvard 
 College, etc. entitled. The Order of the Gospel etc. Dedicated to the 
 Churches of Christ in New England," and bearing the imprint " Printed 
 in the Year 1700," but without either name of publisher or place of 
 issue, we find the statement made, *' The Reader is desired to take notice 
 that the Press in Boston is so much under the aw of the Reverend Author 
 whom we answer, and his Friends, that we could not obtain of the 
 Printer there to print the following sheets, which is the only true reason 
 why we have sent the Copy so far for Its Impression." After the appear- 
 ance of this pamphlet a rather fierce war of statements and counterstate- 
 ments ensued, In the course of which Bartholomew Green, the Boston 
 publisher who had been asked to publish the " Answer " and had declined, 
 in the course of a paper Issued in justification of his refusal said " The 
 Sum is, Whenas no Name appeared on the Title Page; nor so much as the 
 name of any Author was told me, when I requested it, — I had no oppor- 
 tunity to read It over myself, — the Piece being also Controversial; I con- 
 cluded that it would be altogether Inconvenient for me to print it upon 
 my own head without asking advice, for which I referr'd myself to the 
 Honourable William Stoughton, Esq; our Lieutenant Governour — Nor 
 was it a new thing to Show Copies to the Lieutenant Governour In order 
 to their being printed. Mr. Seward's ' Phaenomena Apocalyptica ' was 
 taken oft the Press and carried to the Lieutenant Governor for his Allow- 
 ance. By the same l^oken, one Half Sheet being wrought off too soon; 
 the Author was at the Charge to Print It over again, to gratify His 
 Honour In some Alterations that could not otherwise be made.' Besides 
 other Instances that might be given." ^- Here, Green In his desire to 
 show his position, ends the explanations (some lines after the portion 
 quoted), with the statement that he is a poor man and cannot afford to 
 antagonize the powers that be, — making It very clear that the liberty of 
 printing, as we understand the term to-day, was a thing undreamed of 
 in his time and place. 
 
 >2 Thomas, Vol. I, App. I. 
 
K' 
 
 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS II 
 
 From 1700 to 1720 it would seem from the absence of cases of any 
 importance that the press in Massachusetts, if not free, was not led by 
 party spirit to enter on courses which would cause the government to 
 interfere. But in 172 1 in the record of the Council it is stated that 
 Benjamin Gray was brought before that body charged with the offense 
 of having published a pamphlet entitled " A Letter to a Clergyman in 
 the Massachusetts Bay " and said to contain " expressions which greatly 
 reflect on His Majesty's Government and people of this Province, and 
 tend to disturb the Public Peace." For this Gray was ordered to be 
 prosecuted by the Attorney-General. The result of the matter is not 
 known. Again, in 1722 James Franklin the brother of Benjamin Frank- 
 lin, and publisher of the New England Courant, — the third Boston 
 newspaper, — began a series of articles in which the government, and even 
 the clergy and many prevailing views of the day were warmly attacked. 
 " Whatever we may think of Franklin's course he certainly initiated a 
 new era in journalism. While he suffered in purse and person, the press 
 gained in freedom and independence. The News Letter and the Gazette 
 in Boston, and the Mercury in Philadelphia, the other papers then pub- 
 lished, being in the hands of office holders, were circumspect in the utter- 
 ance of their views. But Franklin was made of different stuff. His 
 paper was the first rebel organ in America. With the leaven of '76 in 
 his soul, he was bold and outspoken, and commented on the abuses of the 
 times as he saw them." ^^ 
 
 In reply Dr. Increase Mather issued an open letter to the public, pub- 
 lished in the Boston Gazette of Jan. 29th, 1722, in which, among other 
 things, he says, " I can well remember when the Civil Government would 
 have taken an effective Course to suppress such a Cursed Libel which if it 
 be not done I am afraid some Awful Judgement will come upon this 
 Land, and that the wrath of God will arise and there will be no remedy." 
 
 About the same time Franklin had ventured in the Courant of June 
 II, 1722, to criticise the government of Massachusetts for its tardiness 
 in dealing with piracy off its coasts and had compared its actions unfavor- 
 ably with those of Rhode Island. The criticism would not seem to us to 
 be of a very decided character, it being in the form of a supposed letter 
 from Rhode Island, concluding with, " We are advised from Boston that 
 the Government of the Massachusetts are fitting out a ship to go after 
 the pirates, to be commanded by Captain Peter Papillon, and 'tis thought 
 
 13 Hudson, History of Journalism, p. 66. 
 
12 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 he will sail sometime this month, wind and weather permitting." This 
 veiled criticism the Council took umbrage at, and at the meeting of the 
 Council the next day, we find the following action. ^^ " Ordered, That 
 the publisher of said paper be forthwith sent for to answer for the same, 
 and accordingly James Franklyn, of Boston, printer, was sent for, 
 examined, and owned that he had published the said paper." The Coun- 
 cil then resolved that the paragraph from the letter quoted above " Was 
 a high affront to this government " and Franklin was arrested and put in 
 prison. The records of the next meeting of the Council again refer to 
 the matter :^^ " In Council, 20 June 1722. A petition of James Franklyn, 
 printer, humbly showing that he is truly sensible and heartily sorry for 
 the offense he has given to this Court in the late Courant, relating to the 
 fitting out of a ship by the government, and truly acknowledges his 
 •inadvertency and folly therein, in affronting the government, as also his 
 indiscretion and indecency when before this Court, for all of which he 
 intreats the Court's forgiveness, and praying a discharge from the stone 
 prison where he is confined by order of the Court, and that he may have 
 the liberty of the yard, he being much indisposed and suffering in his 
 health by the said confinement; a certificate of Dr. Zabdiel Boylston 
 being offered with the said petition." " In the House of Representatives 
 read, and Voted, that James Franklin, now a prisoner in the stone gaol, 
 may have the liberty of the prison house and yard, upon his giving 
 security for his faithful abiding there. 
 
 " In Council, read and concurred; consented to. Sam'l Shute.'* 
 
 Ultimately the Council, on July 5th, 1722 passed the following 
 resolution: "Whereas in the Paper called the New England Courant, 
 printed weekly by James Franklin, many passages have been published 
 boldly reflecting on His Majesty's Government and on the Administration 
 of it in this Province, the Nlinistry, Churches and Colleges; and it very 
 often contains paragraphs that tend to fill the Readers' minds with vanity 
 to the dishonor of God and disservice of Good Men. Resolved, that no 
 such Weekly Paper be hereafter printed without the same be first perused 
 and allowed by the Secretary as has been usual. And that the said 
 Franklin give Security before the Justices of the Superior Court in the 
 Sum of £100 to be of the good Behaviour to the end of next fall Sessions 
 of this Court." Sent down for concurrence." " Read and Non- 
 concurred." 
 
 ^■* MS. Records of General Court. 
 '5 MS. Records of General Court. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS I3 
 
 Although this attempt at the imposition of a fine did not succeed, yet 
 Franklin was released only after an imprisonment of four weeks. 
 
 It does not appear that these proceedings had any effect in checking 
 the freedom with which Franklin and his friends chose to comment on 
 public men and measures. The paper of July 30th, just after the 
 Imprisonment of James Franklin, is occupied almost entirely with a 
 chapter of Magna Charta, and the comment of a correspondent, intended 
 to show the illegality of the proceedings of the government. Almost 
 every paper, for several weeks, contained remarks that irritated, — and 
 probably were intended to irritate, — those in authority, by raising a laugh 
 at their expense. 
 
 At the beginning of January, 1723, Governor Shute sailed for Eng- 
 land and after announcing this fact on Jan. 14, 1723, the Courant added 
 a letter in which the writer said that " it would seem that any Governor, 
 departing from a government with so much privacy and displeasure, can- 
 not reasonably be supposed to promote the interests of that government 
 when he arrives at the British Court." For that reason the writer pro- 
 poses that " two persons, born among us, of tried abilites and address, 
 be, as soon as possible, sent to the Court of Great Britain there to vindi- 
 cate the proceedings of the Honorable House of Representatives, from 
 time to time, since the misunderstandings that have arisen between the 
 Honorable House and Governor Shute." The communication ends 
 with — " Quere. Whether, (pursuant to the charter,) the ministers of 
 this province ought now to pray for Samuel Shute, Esq. as our immediate 
 governor, and at the same time, pray for the Lieutenant-Governor as 
 commander-in-chief? Or, whether their praying for his success in his 
 voyage, if he designs to hurt the province, (as some suppose,) be not in 
 effect to pray for our destruction? " 
 
 On the same day there is the following record of proceedings in the 
 General Court: — " In Council, Jan. 14, 1722-3 — Whereas the paper, 
 called the New England Courant, of this day's date, contains many pas- 
 sages, in which the Holy Scriptures are perverted, and the Civil Govern- 
 ment, Ministers, and People of this Province highly reflected on, 
 Ordered, that Wm. Tailer, Saml. Sewall, and Penn Townsend, Esqrs. 
 with such as the Honorable House of Representatives shall join, be a 
 committee to consider and report what is proper for this Court to do 
 thereon." 
 
14 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 The House concurred and a report was made by the committee as 
 follows; "The Committee appointed to consider of the paper called 
 ' The New England Courant,' published Monday the fourteenth current, 
 are humbly of opinion that the tendency of the said paper is to mock 
 religion, and to bring it into contempt, that the Holy Scriptures are 
 therein profanely abused, that the revered and faithful ministers of the 
 Gospel are injuriously reflected on. His Majesty's Government affronted, 
 and the peace and good order of His Majesty's subjects of this Province 
 disturbed, by the said ' Courant ' ; and for precaution of the like offense 
 for the future, the Committee humbly propose, That James Franklin, 
 the printer and publisher thereof, be strictly forbidden by this Court to 
 print or publish the New England Courant, or any other pamphlet or 
 paper of the like nature, Except it be first supervised by the Secretary of 
 this Province: and the Justices of His Majesty's Sessions of the Peace 
 for this County of Suffolk, at their next adjournment, be directed to take 
 sufficient bonds of the same Franklin, for Twelve Months' time." 
 
 To evade this order the name of Benjamin Franklin, (then an 
 apprentice in his brother's office) was substituted for that of James, and 
 under his nominal ownership the Courant continued to appear until its 
 demise in 1727. 
 
 In the years between the prosecution of the Courant and the middle 
 of the eighteenth century, we find little in Massachusetts for our subject. 
 There was a prosecution in 1724 of John Cl>i'ckley, Bookseller of Boston, 
 undertaken to punish him for importing and selling a work In which 
 Church organization and doctrine in Massachusetts were attacked, an 
 action resulting in a fine of £50; and also an indictment of Thomas 
 Fleet in 1741 for publishing news from England reflecting on the 
 administration of Sir Robert Walpole. The following is the Record of 
 the proceedings in the case of the latter. " At a Council, held at the 
 Council Chamber in Boston, upon Tuesday, the 9th day of March, 174.1. 
 
 " Whereas, there is published in the weekly paper called the Boston 
 Evening Post of yesterday's date, a paragraph in the following words; 
 ' Last Sunday Capt. Gibbs arrived here from Madeira, who Informs us, 
 that before he left that Island, Capt. Dandridge, in one of His 
 Majesty's ships of forty guns, came In there from England, and gave 
 an account, that the Parliament had called for all Papers relating to the 
 War, and 'twas expected the Right Hon. Sir Robert Walpole would be 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 1 5 
 
 taken into custody in a very few days. Capt. Dandridge was going upon 
 the Virginia station to relieve the vahant and vigilant Knight there, 
 almost worn out in the service of his country, and for which he has a 
 chance to be rewarded with a flag.' 
 
 "Which paragraph contains a scandalous and libelous Reflection 
 upon His Majesty's Administration, and may tend very much to inflame 
 the minds of His Majesty's subjects here and disaffect them to his 
 Government. 
 
 " Therefore, Ordered, That the Attorney-General do, as soon as 
 may be, file an Information against Thomas Fleet, the Publisher of the 
 said Paper, in His Majesty's Superior Court of Judicature, Court of 
 Assize, and General Gaol Delivery, in order to his being prosecuted for 
 his said oftense, as law and justice requires. W. Shirley. 
 
 " Copy Examined, per J. Willard, Sec." 
 
 No further steps were ever taken in this matter, for the truth of the 
 statement was too plain to admit of any discussion, but in spite of that 
 the animus that directed the Council was plainly visible; and the inhabit- 
 ants saw in this but another attempt to control the liberty of the press. 
 
 Hardly had this matter been settled than Fleet plunged into a the- 
 ological quarrel. He published a sermon by John Wesley on " Free 
 Grace," an action on his part which resulted in his receiving several sharp 
 attacks from the pulpit, the Rev. John Morehead being especially severe. 
 In the " Post " of Mar. 30, 1741, Fleet makes a reply. After stating that 
 he had published the sermon, not because he liked it but because he 
 thought there was a demand for it, he goes on to say, " Of all the books 
 of controversy that I have ever read, (and I have read some) I never 
 met with one that blamed the printers. The great Dr. Edwards, who, 
 for his knack of finding fault, might have claimed the office of Accuser- 
 General of all Europe, and made as free with authors as any man ever 
 did, never that I find, meddled with the printers; and it is but of late, 
 that some weak men have thought it the safest and easiest way to answer 
 books, and prejudice people against authors and printers, to whisper 
 against them in chimney corners, or declaim in public and more exalted 
 places, where none may with safety oppose them, or speak in their own 
 defense." In Dec, 1742, writing in the same strain, the occasion being 
 another religious dispute, he said ' We are credibly informed that an 
 
l6 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 eminent minister of this town has lately warned his people against read- 
 ing of pamphlets and newspapers, wherein are contained religious con- 
 troversies. This seems a bold stroke, and a considerable step, (if the 
 advice should be regarded,) towards that state of ignorance, in which, 
 it seems, some folk would willingly see the body of this people enveloped. 
 The next stroke may probably be at the LIBERTY OF THE PRESS." 
 
 The next case that we shall take up, namely that of the Fowle 
 Brothers, occurred in 1754. Daniel and Zechariah Fowle, although 
 closely associated, had separate printing establishments, and the younger 
 brother, Zechariah Fowle, was prevailed upon to print a pamphlet 
 entitled " The Monster of Monsters," satirizing the actions of the 
 General Court of the time and particularly an Act in regard to excise. 
 The pamphlet having appeared without an imprint suspicion fell on 
 Daniel Fowle, and the House of Representatives considering itself 
 aggrieved passed the following resolution, dated Oct. 24, 1755; 
 " Resolved, that the pamphlet entitled ' The Monster of Monsters ' is 
 a false, scandalous Libel, reflecting upon the proceedings of the House 
 in general, and on many worthy members in particular, in breach of the 
 privilege thereof. 
 
 " Ordered, That the said pamphlet be burnt by the hands of the 
 common hangman, below the Court-House, in King-Street, Boston, and 
 that the Messenger see the same carried in to execution. Resolved, That 
 the Messenger of the House do forthwith take into custody Daniel Fowle, 
 of Boston, Printer, who, they are informed, was concerned in printing 
 and publishing the said pamphlet, and that the Speaker issue his warrant 
 for that purpose." 
 
 He was accordingly arrested and taken before the House. The par- 
 ticulars of the case which followed are taken from a pamphlet, " The 
 Total Eclipse of Liberty," written and published by D. Fowle himself. 
 The Speaker asked him whether he knew anything of the printing of the 
 book. Having examined it, he said that he could not have printed it for 
 he had no such type. 
 
 Speaker: " Do you know anything relating to the said Book? " 
 
 Fowle asked to have the House decide whether he must answer the 
 question. Some members answering '* Yes " he said he had bought 
 some copies and had sold them at his shop. 
 
 Speaker: " Who did you buy them of? " 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 17 
 
 Fowle: " They were, I believe, sent by a young man, but I cannot 
 tell his name." 
 
 Speaker: "Who did he live with?" 
 
 Fowle: " With Royal Tyler." 
 
 Speaker: "Did you have any conversation with him [Tyler] 
 about them? " 
 
 Fowle: " I believe I might, in the same manner I had with many 
 others; not that I thought him the author. It was never offered to me 
 to print." 
 
 Speaker: " Did any of your hands assist in doing it? " 
 
 Fowle: " I believe my negro might, as he sometimes worked for 
 my brother." 
 
 Speaker: " Has your brother any help? " 
 
 Fowle: "No." 
 
 Speaker: " Did you see any of it whilst printing? " 
 
 Fowle: "Yes." 
 
 Speaker: " Whose house was it in? " 
 
 Fowle: "I think it was my brother's." 
 
 Speaker: " Where does he live? " 
 
 Fowle: " Down by Cross Street." 
 
 Speaker: " What is his name? " 
 
 Fowle: " Zechariah." 
 
 After this Fowle was by order of the House imprisoned in the jail 
 where he was confined for two days and then told to leave. He after- 
 wards endeavored to obtain redress but without success. His brother, 
 Zechariah, was not arrested, being at that time ill; and Tyler, on being 
 brought to the House and questioned, refused to answer, and having 
 been committed for contempt was soon released. 
 
 As the period approached when the Revolutionary War was to break 
 out, those who were contending for the principles of liberty began to per- 
 
l8 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 ceiv^e what a very important weapon the press might become. Accord- 
 ingly it is not unusual to find town-meetings taking the matter up. At 
 Worcester the instructions for the representative to the General Court, 
 Joshua Bigelow, reported to the town meeting by Ephraim Doolittle, 
 Nathan Baldwin, and Jonathan Stone, May i8th, 1767, are typical of 
 the class : — 
 
 "To Mr. Joshua Bigelow; 
 
 " Sir; 
 
 " As we have devolved upon you the important trust of representing 
 us at the Great and General Court, the year ensuing, we, your constitu- 
 ents, therefore, think it our duty and interest to give you the following 
 instructions relative to some of your conduct in said trust. 
 
 " I. That you use your influence to maintain and continue that har- 
 mony and good will between Great Britain and this Province which may 
 be most conducive to the prosperity of each, by a steady and firm attach- 
 ment to English liberty and the charter rights of this Province, and that 
 you willingly suffer no invasions, either through pretext of precedency, 
 or any other way whatsoever; and if you find any encroachments upon our 
 charter rights, that you use your utmost ability to obtain constitutional 
 redress. . . . Take special care of the liberty of the press." '^^ 
 
 One of the names most widely known in connection with the struggle 
 for the Liberty of the Press is that of Isaiah Thomas. Born in 1749, and 
 trained from childhood to the work of a printer, his early years were 
 spent in wandering from Charleston, South Carolina to Halifax, Nova 
 Scotia. It may be interesting, as showing the reputation v/hich the 
 printers of the New England Colonies had for independence, to give an 
 account of an incident which occurred during Thomas' stay in Halifax. 
 Anthony Henry, the printer in Halifax for whom in 1766 the youth was 
 working, was but an indifferent craftsman and left much to Thomas. 
 The latter had brought with him from Boston notions of liberty, and 
 finding that the Gazette of Halifax was printed on stamped paper, he 
 inserted a paragraph stating that " the people of the province were dis- 
 gusted w'th the Stamp Act." The master was called to account by the 
 government for having printed sedition, but laid the blame on his journey- 
 man who was summoned to appear before the Secretary of the Province, 
 when the following conversation ensued : 
 
 16 Wm. Lincoln. History of Worcester, Mass. p. 68. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS I9 
 
 Q. " Are you the young New England man who prints for 
 Henry ?" 
 
 A. " Yes, sir." 
 
 Q. " How dare you publish In the Gazette that the people of Nova 
 Scotia were displeased with the Stamp Act? " 
 
 A. " I thought it was true." 
 
 Secretary; "You had no right to think so. If you publish any 
 more of such stuff you shall be punished. You may go, but remember you 
 are not in New England." 
 
 Thomas; " I will, sir." ^'^ 
 
 Thomas afterwards published in Boston a paper called the Massa- 
 chusetts Spy and in 177 1 he became seriously involved with the govern- 
 ment concerning an article (in the issue of Nov, 14,) signed Muclus 
 Scaevola, in which it was declared that Hutchinson was not the legal 
 governor of the Province. Extracts from the Boston Evening Post and 
 the Boston Gazette of Nov. 18, give an account of what occurred. 
 
 " We hear that at a council held at the Council Chamber last Satur- 
 day, a piece signed Mucius Scaevola, published in the Massachusetts 
 Spy of Nov. 14th, printed by Isaiah Thomas, was taken into considera- 
 tion, when it was unanimously ordered, that the Attorney General be 
 directed to prosecute the publisher thereof. It is said the piece referred 
 to (from its nature and tendency) is the most daring production ever 
 published In America. ^^ 
 
 " On Friday last. In the afternoon, his Excellency the Governor laid 
 before the Council for their advice thereon, a paper in the Massachusetts 
 Spy of Thursday, signed Mucius Scaevola, said to contain divers sedi- 
 tious expressions, &c. The council after debating till sundown adjourned 
 till the next day, when they met again and s-^nt for the printer, who in 
 answer to the summons, told the messenger he was busy in his office, and 
 should not attend; Upon which it is said a motion was made for his com- 
 mitment to prison for contempt — but did not obtain. Whether the 
 abundant lenity of the honourable, or from their having no legal 
 authority In the case, has not yet transpired to us. The final result was, 
 
 17 B. F. Thomas, Memoirs of J. Thom_as, p. 19. 
 
 18 Boston Evening Post. 
 
20 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 their unanimous advice to the Governour to order the King's Attorney 
 to prosecute the Printer at Common-Law." ^^ 
 
 Joseph Greenleaf, a justice of the peace for the county of Plymouth, 
 being suspected of having some concern, either as a writer, or otherwise, 
 in the Massachusetts Spy, received a summons of the purport following, 
 which he laid before the public in the Spy of November 22, 177 i. 
 
 " Province of Massachusetts Bay — To Joseph Greenleaf, Esq., of 
 Boston, in said province, — 
 
 " You are required to appear before the Governor and Council, at 
 the Council-chamber in Boston, on Tuesday the tenth day of December 
 next, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, then and there to be examined touch- 
 ing a certain paper called the Massachusetts Spy, published the fourteenth 
 day of November, 177 i ; whereof you are not to fail at your peril. Dated 
 at Boston, the i6th day of November, 1771. "By order of the Gov- 
 ernor, with the advice of Council, 
 
 Thomas F ucker, Secretary." 
 
 Greenleaf did not obey the summons, and on the twelfth of Decem- 
 ber following, the Boston News-Letter, (Court Gazette) contained the 
 proceedings of the Governor and Council of the tenth of that month in 
 consequence thereof, viz. 
 
 " At a Council held at the Council-Chamber in Boston, Tuesday, 
 December loth, 1771. 
 
 " His Excellency having acquainted the Board at their last meeting, 
 that Joseph Greenleaf, Esq; a Justice of the Peace for the county of Ply- 
 mouth, was generally reputed to be concerned with Isaiah Thomas, in 
 printing and publishing a News-Paper, called the Massachusetts Spy, 
 and the said Joseph Greenleaf having thereupon been summoned to 
 attend the board on this day, in order to his examination touching the 
 same, and not attending according to summons, it was thereupon unani- 
 mously advised, that the said Joseph Greenleaf be dismissed from the 
 office of a Justice of the Peace, which advice was approved of and con- 
 sented to by his Excellency, and the said Joseph Greenleaf is dismissed 
 from the said office accordingly. " A true copy from the minutes of 
 Council. Thomas Flucker, Secretary." 
 
 19 Boston Gazette. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 21 
 
 A bill of indictment against Thomas for publishing an obnoxious 
 libel was then prepared by the Attorney-General ; the Chief Justice deliv- 
 ered a charge to the grand jury, in which he spoke of the intemperate and 
 dangerous position of the press and the necessity for stopping the trouble 
 before it assumed greater proportions; but the grand jury refused to 
 indict. The court then directed the Attorney-General to file an informa- 
 tion against Thomas, but such a storm of opposition arose from all 
 quarters, on the ground that the rights and privileges of the individual 
 were being destroyed, that the government reconsidered its position and 
 decided that policy required that the matter be dropped. 
 
 Thomas then, to show that his position was not without precedent, 
 reprinted in the issue of Oct. lo, 1772, from the Middlesex Journal 2*^ 
 an address to the King, which was far more disloyal in tone and spirit, 
 and yet which had passed unnoticed not only when published in England 
 originally, but also when republished in New York. The Governor and 
 Council attempted to take some action in reply, but failed, since no jury 
 could be found to indict. 
 
 One more instance of oppression closes our account of the battle for 
 the liberty of the press in Massachusetts. Benjamin Edes and John Gill 
 published the " Boston Gazette and Country Journal," distinguished for 
 its spirited political essays. Force's " American Archives " -^ tells us that 
 Gill in Sept. 1775 was imprisoned for twenty-nine days for printing sedi- 
 tion, treason, and rebellion. That the views of the publishers were 
 revolutionary in their tenor may be judged from an article published in 
 the Gazette commenting on an attack made on the printers of the Centinel; 
 here is shown the boldness of the publishers in defense of the liberty 
 of the press, even when that liberty was invaded by an attack on a political 
 opponent. 
 
 " The attack made upon the printers of the Centinel on Saturday last, 
 by a number of well-known persons, ought to excite the serious attention 
 of all those, who duly regard the bulwark of our liberties, THE FREE- 
 DOM OF THE PRESS. If a printer for advertising that he intends to 
 publish a certain book for the information, or merely the amusement or 
 innocent diversion of his fellow-citizens, is to be beset and abused by a 
 set of club-men, because the title-page does not happen to hit their taste, 
 we may take a farewell of our independence, which we have gloriously 
 
 20 Of England. 
 
 21 Vol. Ill, p. 712. 
 
22 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 obtained, not without great expense of our treasure, and the loss of some 
 of our best blood. A wound in so tender a point must surely prove fatal. 
 Should the government appoint licensers of the Press, it would give just 
 cause for offense. What right then, has any set of men, to forbid the 
 printing of a book, till it has had their Imprimatur, or to punish a printer 
 with club-law for advertising it? " 
 
 With the cases of Edes and Gill we reach the breaking out of the 
 Revolution, the limit of our survey. The government had by this time 
 become practically powerless in its attempts to control the press, for with 
 the loss of the censorship, the only way in which it could act was through 
 an indictment, and this required a jury friendly to the crown, something 
 which was not at that time at all easy to obtain. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE PRESS IN PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 IN the Other New England colonies we find nothing of sufficient 
 importance to justify an investigation, but when we pass to Pennsyl- 
 vania we again come into a field where the battle for the liberty of 
 the press was vigorously carried on. This was the second colony where 
 the press was established, and the printer was William Bradford after- 
 wards of New York. Coming to Philadelphia from England in 1682, 
 then returning to England, and finally settling permanently in America in 
 1685, the first issue of his press, a " Kalendarium Pennsylvaniense, or 
 America's Messenger, an Almanack," dated 1685, taught him to 
 appreciate how carefully he must walk in order to avoid trouble. Oppo- 
 site the days of the month he set down the remarkable events that had 
 occurred on them in the past. Opposite one he printed " The beginning 
 of Government here by Lord Penn." No sooner had the Secretary of the 
 Council read these words in the advance sheets than he summoned Brad- 
 ford to appear before the Council, where he was. ordered to blot out the 
 words " Lord Penn " and warned " Not to print anything but what shall 
 have lycence from ye Council." ^ 
 
 The Society of Friends followed the lead of the Council and the 
 minutes of the Friends' Meetings of the time give evidence of a desire 
 on their part to share in the control. 
 
 "Quarterly Meeting 10 Month 5, 1687. 
 
 " Ordered by this Meeting that Wm. Bradford the Printer do show 
 what concerns Friends or Truth before printing, to the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia; and if it requires speed, to the Monthly Meeting 
 where it may belong. 
 
 And it is further Ordered by the Meeting that John Eakly, John 
 Sheldon, Samuel Richardson and Samuel Carpenter do view or peruse 
 the Almanack of Edward Eakin's writing, before it goes to be printed, 
 on behalf of this meeting." - 
 
 1 Min. of Provincial Council, Vol. I, p. 115. 
 
 2 Quoted in Wallace. "Bradford Centenary" p. 59. 
 
 23 
 
24 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 Thus we find Bradford under two masters, a censorship of State and 
 Church. It Is not difficult for us to understand the troubles that Brad- 
 ford had to endure, under a Governor and Council jealous of any infringe- 
 ment on the royal prerogative, and a Meeting that would scrutinize every 
 line printed for sign of heresy. And so Bradford found each year more 
 troublesome than the last. 
 
 In 1689 he was in serious trouble with Governor John Blackwell, 
 when as J. W. Wallace says,^ " He was the first man to establish the 
 press in these Middle colonies. He was the first man, anywhere, so far 
 as I know, to maintain its freedom against arbitrary power." It was at 
 a time when there was much feeling between the Governor and the people 
 as to their respective rights and Bradford printed the charter which Penn 
 had given but, since he appears to have anticipated trouble, he put no 
 imprint on the tract. However, as he was the only printer In the Province 
 It required no deep thought to discover from whose press It must have 
 proceeded. In what Bradford did there Is no doubt that he, or those for 
 whom he worked, had given to the Governor serious cause for complaint. 
 To quote John Bach McMaster,^ " The Opposition, Quakers though 
 they were, had carefully and deliberately distorted the Frame to suit their 
 own ends. From one line In the Charter they dropped the word ' Jurls: 
 diction.' From another which read ' A Committee of the Provincial 
 Council,' they took away ' of the Provincial Council.' But the most 
 serious change of all was In the line which declares that by the Council 
 and Assembly ' All laws shall be made, officers chosen and publick affairs 
 transacted.' From this the words ' officers chosen ' were carefully 
 omitted." 
 
 The matter was first discussed in the Council in whose Minutes for 
 May 9th, 1689 we find the following entry: " The Governor acquainted 
 
 the Board that he had this morning received a printed 
 
 paper, (called the frame of the Government of this Province etc.) 
 brought unto him by the Secretary, who said he had it from Wm. Clark, 
 a member of this board, and that he had it from Jos. Growdon; who 
 being present, the Goverr. desired to know of him how he came by it. 
 
 Jos. Growdon answered, Wm. Clark had a little book of me. The 
 Goverr. asked him again how he came by It, and told him It was a high 
 presumption In any man, especially a member of that Board, to promote 
 
 3 " Bradford Centenary," p. 49. 
 
 4 " A Free Press in the Middle Colonies," Princeton Review, Vol. I. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 25 
 
 the publishing of any paper of such concerne without direction, Especially 
 for that it was false in so fundamental a poynt as that was, and that unless 
 
 he could cleare himselfe he was liable to Censure The 
 
 Govrr. Said that he looked upon it, as being of a dan- 
 gerous nature (in the present condition of our affayrs, and distractions the 
 Countrey were in) to have such a paper published; not only for that It 
 was false. But for that the Proprietor had declared himself against the 
 using of the printing presse; and especially for that there seemed to him 
 to be several things therein contayned which though they might be fit for 
 the people of this Province to know (and that they might do by having 
 resort to the Keeper's, where it was lodged,) but would be of ill con- 
 sequence to be known to others, and might possibly bring the Proprietor's 
 title in question." 
 
 Bradford was summoned to appear before the Governor and Council, 
 when the following conversation ensued ; ^ 
 
 The Governor having taxed him with the printing, Bradford replied; 
 
 Bradford. — " Since thee came here, Governour, I never heard of 
 anything to the contrary, but that I might print such things as came to my 
 hand, whereby to get my living; it is that by which I subsist; nor do I 
 know of any Imprimatur appointed." 
 
 Governor. — " Sir, I am Imprimatur; and that you shall know. I will 
 bind you in a bond of £500, that you shall print nothing but what I do 
 allow of ; or I shall lay you fast." 
 
 Bradford. — " Governour, I have not hitherto known thy pleasure 
 herein, and therefore hope that thou wilt judge the more favorably, if 
 I have done anything that does not look well to some." 
 
 Governor. — " Sir, I have particular order from Governour Penn for 
 the suppressing of printing here, and narrowly to look after your press; 
 and I will search your house, look after your press, and make you give In 
 £500 security to print nothing but what I allow, or I'll lay you fast." 
 
 William Penn's known relations with King James II, and the attitude 
 of the latter toward the liberty of the Individual, and his attempts In 
 England to control the press, may explain this position which Penn had 
 assumed. A foreshadowing of it appears in the Minutes of the Provln- 
 
 5 Wallace. " Bradford Centenary," p. 50. Original in Bradford's handwriting in possess- 
 sion of N. Y. Hist. Society. 
 
 1/ 
 
v/ 
 
 26 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 cial Council, 23d day, 3d month, 1683,*^ Wm. Penn himself presiding. 
 *' It was proposed to have an attested Coppy of the Laws printed. After 
 some debate the Govr. put the Question, and it was carried in the Nega- 
 tive, they should not be printed." 
 
 Under such restrictions as these we are not surprised to find that the 
 young man seriously considered the advisability of returning to England, 
 and that he applied to and received from the General Meeting of Friends 
 a certificate of good character and dismissal to England. But so much 
 dissatisfaction was expressed on all sides at the prospect of his leaving 
 Philadelphia that the General Society at its next meeting voted him an 
 annual subsidy of £40, and agreed to give him enough work to warrant 
 his remaining. The idea of returning to England seems now to have 
 been finally laid aside. 
 
 Three years later, in 1692, George Keith, a member of the Society 
 of Friends, became involved in a religious dispute and parties were soon 
 formed. Keith, in order to present his position to the General Meeting 
 of the Friends, wrote a pamphlet, setting forth his views and claims, and 
 this pamphlet was published by Wm. Bradford, who belonged to his 
 faction. For this Bradford was arrested, and put in prison, and his press 
 and tools seized by the sheriff. John McComb, for having two copies 
 of the pamphlet in his possession, was put in prison along with Bradford. 
 The Warrant for committing Bradford and McComb read in parts as 
 follows : " Whereas, Wm. Bradford, printer, and John McComb, 
 taylor, being brought before us on an information of Publishing, Utter- 
 ing, and Spreading a Malitious and Seditious paper, intituled An Appeal 
 from the Twenty-Eight Judges to the Spirit of Truth etc. Tending to 
 the disturbance of the Peace and the Subversion of the Present Govern- 
 ment, and the said Persons being required to give Securitie to answer it 
 at the next Court, but they refused so to do. These are therefore to 
 require you to take into your Custody etc." 
 
 When, at the next session of the Court Bradford was brought to the 
 bar, he was presented as the printer of the seditious paper " The Appeal " 
 which was declared to have a tendency to weaken the hands of the gov- 
 ernment; and in the second place it was charged that he had printed it 
 without putting his name on it. When the jury were called he challenged 
 two on the ground that they had formed and expressed opinions, not to 
 
 G Min. Prov. Council I, p. 18. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 2/ 
 
 the fact of his having published the paper, but as to its being of a sedi- 
 tious character; opinions which he himself had heard them express. The 
 following discussion then ensued: Prosecuting Attorney " Hast thou at 
 any time heard them say that thou printed the paper? for that is only 
 what they are to find." 
 
 Bradford. — " That is not only what they are to find. They are to 
 find also whether this be a seditious paper or not, and whether It does 
 tend to weaken the hands of the magistrates." 
 
 Attorney. — " No, that is a matter of law, which the jury Is not to 
 meddle with, but find whether Wm. Bradford printed it or not. 
 
 Justice Jennings. — " You are only to try whether Wm. Bradford 
 printed it or not? " 
 
 Bradford. — This Is wrong; for the jury are judges in the law as well »^ 
 as in matter of fact." 
 
 Justice Cook. — " I will not allow these exceptions to the jurors." 
 
 On this David Paul Brown of the Philadelphia Bar remarks: " We 
 have, therefore, in this trial, evidence of the fact. Interesting to the whole 
 press of America, and especially interesting to the Bar and Press of 
 Pennsylvania, that, on the soil of Pennsylvania, the father of her press 
 asserted, in 1692, with a precision not since surpassed, a principle in the ^ 
 law of libel, hardly then conceived anywhere, but which now (1856) ^ 
 protects every publication in this State and in much of our Union : a prin- 
 ciple which English judges, after the struggles of the great Whig Chief 
 Justice and Chancellor, Lord Camden, throughout his whole career, and 
 the brilliant declaimer, Mr. Erskine, were unable to reach; and which, 
 at a later day, became finally established In England only by the enact- 
 ment of Mr. Fox's Libel Bill In Parliament itself." ^ 
 
 The jury did not agree, an^ Bradford was held over to the next 
 Term. At this time he was not tried again, but a request by him that his 
 tools and press be returned to him was denied. Then Penn was deprived 
 of the province, and when Governor Fletcher arrived in Philadelphia and 
 held his Council, we find a petition from Bradford in the matter.^ 
 " Upon reading the petition of Wm. Bradford, printer, directed to his 
 Excell. wherein he setts forth that in September last his tooles and Letters 
 
 7 David Paul Brown, The Forum, Vol. I, p. 281. 
 
 8 Min. Provincial Council, Apr. 27, 1693. 
 
28 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 were Seized by order of the Late Rulers, for printing some books of Con- 
 troversie, and are still kept from him, to the great hurt of his family, and 
 prays Reliefe. His Excell. did ask the advice of this board. The Sev- 
 erall members of Councill being well acquainted with the truth of the 
 petitioner's allegations, are of opinion, and doe advise His Excell. To 
 Cause the petitioner's tooles and Letters to be restored to him. 
 
 Ordered that John White, Sheriffe of Philadelphia, doe Restore to 
 William Bradford, printer, his tooles and Leteers, taken from him in 
 September Last." 
 
 In the same year Bradford, on the advice and even solicitation of 
 Governor Fletcher, removed to New York where we shall meet with him 
 again, when we study the condition of the press in that colony. 
 
 Andrew Bradford, the son of that Wm. Bradford of whom we have 
 just written, was born in Philadelphia in 1686, and, after going to New 
 York with his father, returned to Philadelphia in 17 12 where he carried 
 on the business of printing, having, through his father's influence, secured 
 a press belonging to the Society of Friends. Here he was appointed 
 " Printer to the Province," and on Dec. 22, 17 19 he began to print " The 
 American Weekly Mercury " the first newspaper in the Middle States, 
 where his father had founded the first press. In 172 1 he in his turn 
 became involved in a dispute with the law oflScers of the Crown. At this 
 time, a discussion going on in regard to the finances of the Province, there 
 appeared in the Mercury of Jan. 2, 172 1 (O. S.) the following 
 paragraph: 
 
 " Our General Assembly are now sitting, and we have great expecta- 
 tions from them, at this juncture, that they will find some effectual remedy 
 to revive the dying credit of the Province, and restore us to our former 
 happy circumstances." 
 
 In regard to this paragraph we fiilti the following in the Minutes of 
 the Provincial Council for Jan. 19, 1721. (0. S.) "Upon a motion 
 made, that Andrew Bradford, Printer, be examined before this Board 
 concerning the publishing of the late Pamphlet, entituled Some Remedies 
 proposed for the restoring the Sunk Credit of the Province of Pennsyl- 
 vania, as also of the Weekly Mercury of the 2d of January instant, the 
 last paragraph whereof seems to have been intended as a reflection upon 
 the Credit of this province: it is ordered That he the said Printer, have 
 notice to attend this Board at the next meeting of Council." And on 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 29 
 
 Feb. ist we read " The Board being informed that Andrew Bradford, the 
 Printer, attended according to order. He was called in and examined con- 
 cerning a late Pamphlet, entituled Some Remedies proposed for restoring 
 the Sunk Credit of the Province of Pennsylvania; Whereupon, He de- 
 clared that He knew nothing of the printing or of the publishing of the 
 said Pamphlet; And being reprimanded by the Governor for publishing 
 a certain paragraph in his News-Letter, called the American Mercury of 
 the 2d of January last, He said that it was inserted by his Journey-Man, 
 who composed the said Paper, without his Knowledge and that he was very 
 sorry for it, and for which he humbly submitted himself and asked Pardon 
 of the Govr. and the Board : — Whereupon the Governour told him. That 
 he must not for the future presume to publish anything relating to or con- 
 cerning the affairs of this Government, or the Government of any other 
 of his Majesty's Colonies, without the permission of the Governour or 
 Secretary of this province, for the time being. And then he was dismissed 
 and the Council adjourned." 
 
 For eight years Andrew Bradford kept free from mixg trouble with 
 the government, but in 1729 he was once more summoimd to appear 
 before the Council. At this time Benjamin Franklin wa^contributing 
 tQ, a series of articles appearing in the Mercury, and afterwards con- 
 tinued by others under the common name of Busy Body. In No. 31, 
 published just before the date of an election, he said: " To the frierM 
 of liberty, firmness of mind and public spirit are absolutely requisite ; and 
 this quality, so essential and necessary to a noble mind, proceeds from a 
 just way of thinking that we are not bom for ourselves alone, nor our 
 own private advantages alone, but likewise and principally for the good 
 of others and service of civil society. This raised the genius of the 
 Romans, improved their virtue, and made them protectors of mankmd. 
 This principle, according to the motto of these papers, animated the 
 Romans. — Cato and his followers — and it was impossible to be thought 
 great or good without being a patriot; and no one could pretend to cour- 
 age, gallantry, and greatness of mind, without being first of all possessed 
 with a public spirit and love of their country." 
 
 Of this Essay Mr. David Paul Brown » remarks, " It was well 
 written, and though bold in parts, an air of pleasantry took from it much 
 aspect of malignity. Indeed the w^hole piece is subdued, below the 
 standard even of orthodoxy in modern democratic politics, and contains 
 
 9 Forum I, 283. 
 
30 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 much which deserves and would receive at all times, the admiration of 
 every party." 
 
 The matter was at once taken up by the government, as the following 
 extract for Sept. 20, 1729 from the Minutes of the Provincial Council 
 shows : 
 
 " The Governor acquainted the Board that he now called them 
 together to lay before them a News paper published in this Province, 
 printed and sold by Andrew Bradford, numbered 506, in which a Letter 
 signed Brutus or Casslus, or both, appears to reflect on the King and 
 government of Great Britain, and to Incite the Inhabitants of this Prov- 
 ince to throw off all subjection to the regular and established Powers of 
 Government. And the same being read and considered by the Board, It 
 Is their Opinion that it Is a wicked and seditious Libell, tending to intro- 
 .duce Confusion under the notion of Liberty, and to just regard due to 
 1/ Persons in Authority. 'Tis therefore Ordered that the said Bradford 
 be immediately taken into Custody, and examined by the Mayor and 
 Recorder of this City, or any other two Justices of the Peace, and that 
 his Dwelling House and Printing Office be searcht for the written Copy 
 of the said Libel, that the author may be discovered, and that the Attor- 
 ney General commence a prosecution against the said Bradford for print- 
 ing and publishing the same. 
 
 N. B. 
 
 This order being executed, and the Original Copy being found, it 
 appeared to be wrote by one Campbell, a Parson of dissolute character, 
 who had lived for some time in Newcastle County, but his scandalous 
 behaviour proving Intolerable to his Hearers there, he removed to Long 
 Island, from whence he sent that Paper with others of the same strain, by 
 ^ the Post to Andrew Bradford, who without considering or knowing Its 
 tendency, printed It as he did other Papers In his Mercury. His ignor- 
 ance therefore, gave some Abatement to the Prosecution; he was however 
 committed, and then Bound over to the Court." 
 
 The matter seems to have ended here. At least In the next Issue 
 of the Mercury, Bradford makes no apology save that he thought the 
 remarks prefaced to the article complained of had been sufficiently clear 
 to prevent any misunderstanding. Following this, comes another article 
 in a tone much like that of the preceding one and prefaced by the state- 
 ment that It had been set in type before the action taken by the Lieutenant 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 31 
 
 Governor Gordon, and the Council, and that he, Bradford, saw no reason 
 to make any alteration in it before sending it out to the public. It is 
 probably owing to Andrew Bradford's well recognized prominence in the 
 community and his reputation for sobriety of speech and uprightness of 
 character that the matter was suffered to drop. But from this time it is 
 easy to discern that the press in Pennsylvania had greatly lost its dread 
 of government supervision and from time to time criticized without any 
 reproof, the action of those in office, in a way and with language which 
 a few years earlier would have subjected the printer and the writer alike 
 to most unpleasant consequences. 
 
 In 1758 Wm. Moore, then President of the Court of Common Pleas 
 for the County of Chester, became Involved in a dispute with the House 
 of Assembly of Pennsylvania and Moore presented an Address to the 
 Governor which was afterwards translated into German and published 
 in a German newspaper in Philadelphia under the direction of the Rev. 
 Dr. Wm. Smith, son-in-law of Judge Moore and at that time Provost of 
 the University of Pennsylvania.^*^ This Address the Assembly decided 
 to be a libel and ordered the, arrest of Moore and Smith. Moore was 
 imprisoned for writing the Address, and Smith (although it was shown 
 that It had been published In the two English papers printed In Phila- 
 delphia and that no objection had been made by the x^ssembly), was 
 ordered Imprisoned for translating it into German and causing it to be 
 published. 
 
 On being informed that he could escape imprisonment by making an y^ 
 apology, he replied, " that he thought It was his duty to keep the Dutch 
 press as free as any other press In the Province ; and, as he was conscious 
 of no offense against the House, his lips should never give his heart the 
 lie; there being no punishment, which they could Inflict, half so terrible 
 to him as the thought of forfeiting his veracity and good name with the 
 world." 11 
 
 He afterwards went in the same year (1758) to England, to appeal "^ 
 before the Privy Council and was successful in his suit. 
 
 Wm. Bradford, grandson of the Wm. Bradford who had set up the 
 first printing press In Pennsylvania, and nephew of Andrew Bradford, 
 
 10 Penn. Mag. of Hist. Vol. IV, p. 373, Art. on Rev. Wm. Smith, D. D. ; also Horace 
 Wemyss Smith, " Life and Correspondence of the Revd. Wm. Smith, D. D., Vol. I." 
 
 11 American Magazine, Jan. 1758. Journal of House of Assembly of Pennsylvania for 
 1757 and 1758. 
 
 '^ 
 
32 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 began in Philadelphia in 1742 the publication of a newspaper called " The 
 Pennsylvania Journal," in which he advocated in a style gradually increas- 
 ing in intensity and clearness of statement the rights of the colonies as 
 opposed to Great Britain, The subject of the liberty of the press would 
 naturally be of importance to a member of the Bradford family, and in 
 the issues of Sept. 1766 Bradford engaged In a controversy which gave 
 him an opportunity to express his views. The Journal of Sept. 4, pub- 
 lished a number of letters from John Hughes (a member of the Legis- 
 lature and also lately appointed by the King to collect the stamp-tax) , to 
 the Commissioners of the Stamp Office, which placed Hughes in a very 
 unfavorable light before his fellow countrymen. Hughes declared these 
 letters to be forgeries and brought an action against the publishers, Wm. 
 Bradford and his son Thomas. When It came to the point Hughes 
 dropped the case, but It furnished the Bradfords with an opportunity 
 which they did not fail to take advantage of. Speaking of the action, 
 In their Issue of Sept. i ith, 1776, they say It Is but a " fresh instance of 
 his (Hughes) regard to the liberties of his fellow-subjects. In his impo- 
 tent, but 111 natured attempt against the Liberty of the Press." . . . 
 
 They proceed to say: — " His suing the printers of the Pennsylvania 
 Journal, for printing an exact copy of his own letters. Is no more than an 
 Ill-judged effect of that insatiable passion, which he has, to trample upon 
 the most sacred rights and privileges of British subjects In America. The 
 letters themselves, which are but the history of his own conduct for a 
 considerable time past, plainly discover how heartily and passionately he 
 wished for the favourable opportunity which would put it into the power 
 of this excellent patriot, to execute the detestable STAMP ACT, which 
 no American can mention without abhorrence, and to reduce the free- 
 born sons of Britain to a most wretched state of slavery. What else can 
 be the meaning of his barefaced Falsehood, In representing North 
 America In a state of absolute rebellion against the best of Kings, and in 
 using all his feeble endeavors to excite his Majesty and his ministers to 
 send over an armed force to quell us, as he modestly terms it? But such 
 Is his Insensibility to all the dictates of Honour or Publick Virtue, that to 
 compleat his character he would now attempt to demolish the Liberty of 
 the Press, that Invaluable privilege of a free people; because through that 
 channel his hidden arts are brought to light. 
 
 'TIs but a piece of justice to the public, to let them know his last 
 effort to prop his sinking character, which has long labored under violent 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 33 
 
 suspicions. He procured a writ for the printers of his letters, on Satur- 
 day last, which was executed by the Sheriff on Monday morning follow- 
 ing; as twelve hundred pounds damages were marked upon the writ, the 
 printers sent him a notice about tw^elve o'clock, to appear before a 
 Magistrate to shew cause of action; but he refused to appear. At 4 
 o'clock the same afternoon they sent him another notice, to appear for 
 the same purpose at 10 o'clock the next day, and informed him, that 
 unless he appeared, they would move for a discharge from the arrest. 
 But such was the consciousness of his guilt, that he refused again to 
 appear, and as he could not be compelled by law to shew cause of action, 
 the arrest was accordingly discharged. We are only the printers of a 
 free and impartial paper, and we challenge Mr. Hughes and the world, 
 to convict us of partiality in this respect, or of even an inclination to 
 restrain the freedom of the press in any instance. We can appeal to 
 North-America not only for our impartiality as printers, but also for the 
 very great advantages derived by us very lately from the unrestrained 
 liberty, which every Britain claims of communicating his sentiments to the 
 public thro' the channel of the press. What would have become of the 
 liberties of the British in North-America, if Mr. Hughes calls on Great 
 Britain had been heard, to restrain the printers here from publishing 
 what he is pleased to stile inflammatory pieces, and if every prostitute 
 scribbler, and enemy to his country, had been suffered without control 
 from the pens of true patriots, to ra-ck their distempered brains, to find 
 out arguments to gull a free-born people into a tame submission to per- 
 petual slavery, and to impose their flimsy cobwebs upon us, instead of 
 solid and substantial reasoning? To the freedom of the press in 
 America, we may in a great measure attribute the continuance of those 
 Inherent and constitutional privileges, which we yet enjoy and which every 
 Briton, who Is not enslaved to private or party interests prefers to his 
 life. We cannot therefore doubt, but that the happiness, which now 
 reigns through all the British plantations, will inspire every friend of 
 his country with an honest and generous Indignation against the wretch 
 that would attempt to enslave his countrymen by restraints on the press." 
 With this spirited statement we end the struggle for the Liberty of 
 the Press in Pennsylvania. It is not composed of as many parts as that 
 of Massachusetts, but the attitude assumed by Bradford at the first is 
 continued by his successors, and the press of Pennsylvania ever presented 
 a bold and unyielding front to attacks whether they proceeded from 
 Church or State. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE PRESS IN NEW YORK 
 
 THE desire to have a printing press, on which laws and proclama- 
 tions might be printed for the information of the people, was as 
 strong in New York as in the other colonies established along the 
 Atlantic coast, but unlike the general attitude assumed by colonial govern- 
 ments toward the press we find in New York that the head of the colony 
 was the person chiefly instrumental in its establishment. 
 
 Francis Lovelace, the second English Governor of New York, when 
 sending to Long Island some books printed in England for the Indians, 
 wrote: " I am not out of hopes, ere long, to have a printer here of my 
 own; having already sent to Boston for one; but whether I shall speed 
 or no is uncertain." ^ 
 
 As we hear no more of the matter it is probable that the inducements 
 Lovelace had to offer did not suffice to tempt the Boston printers. It 
 seems that in this matter Lovelace was acting in his own initiative, since 
 we find the attitude of the home government in the matter clearly stated 
 in the Instructions issued to the Governors. In 1686 those to Governor 
 Dongan contain the following clause: "For as much as great incon- 
 venience may arise by the liberty of printmg within our province of New 
 York, you are to provide by all necessary orders, that no person keep any 
 press for printing; nor that any book, pamphlet, or other matters what- 
 soever, be printed — without your special leave and license first obtained."^ 
 This clause appears in Instruction after Instruction given to the succeed- 
 ing Governors, e. g. to Andros,'^ to Fletcher,^ Sloughter,-^' to Bellomont,*^ 
 and to Hunter.'^ 
 
 The accession of William and Mary brought with it a certain 
 increase in the amount of personal liberty enjoyed by the people, and the 
 
 1 Orders, Warrants, Letters &c.. Vol. II, N. Y., at Albany, quoted in Wallace, Bradford 
 Centenary, p. 60. 
 
 2 Doc. Rel. to Col. Hist, of N. Y., Vol. HI, p. 375. 
 
 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., Ill, 548. 
 
 4 Same, III, 824. 
 
 5 Same, HI, 691. 
 
 6 Same, IV, 290. 
 
 7 Same, V, 142. 
 
 34 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 35 
 
 ideas now prevalent show themselves in the position assumed by the new 
 Governor, Benjamin Fletcher, toward the printing press. It will be 
 remembered that in 1692 Governor Fletcher, while In Philadelphia, had 
 ordered on petition of Wm. Bradford that his press and tools of trade 
 (which had been seized by the sheriff in the case in regard to the printed 
 address written by George Keith), should be restored, and It may be 
 conjectured that it was at this time that Governor Fletcher conceived the 
 idea of bringing Bradford to New York. 
 
 In the Minutes of the Legislative Council of New York for Mar. 
 23, 1693-4 occurs the following resolution: " If a Printer will come and 
 settle in the City of New York for the printing of our Acts of Assembly 
 and Publick Papers, he shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money 
 of New York per annum for his salary and have the benefit of his print- 
 ing, besides what serves the publick." 
 
 This invitation Bradford accepted, and on his arrival In New York 
 was appointed Royal Printer on April loth, and we find his name included 
 among the officers of the Crown, ^ in a list of April 20, 1693. That a 
 new interest In the carrying on of the government is being awakened 
 among the people and that the legislative body is cognizant of it Is evi- 
 denced from the Order passed In the Legislative Council on Oct. 20, 1694. 
 " Ordered that Coll Steph Cortlandt, Coll Nich Bayard, Chldley Brooke 
 Esqr, Wm. NIcholl Esqr. and William PInhorn Esqr. be a Committee of 
 this board to consider what papers and messages passed between his 
 Excell. and Council and Assembly this sessions are propper to be printed 
 and published for the satisfaccon of the people." No report Is received 
 from the Committee and as the session ended a few days later, the matter 
 seems for the time to have been dropped. 
 
 In the next session there is a further advance. Governor Fletcher 
 and his Assembly had become involved In a dispute in regard to the 
 Muster Rolls and the pay for the men serving on the frontier against the 
 Indians. The stages by which the demana for publicity made by the 
 Assembly advanced are shown In the following extracts : 
 
 " General Assembly. Apr. 12, 1695. A. M. 
 
 " Ordered, That this House do address his Excellency for leave to 
 print the Journal of this House this Sessions; and that the Clerk of this 
 House do acquaint the Printer therewith; and that Capt. Fllkin and 
 Capt. Rensselaer do wait upon his Excellency with this address." 
 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., IV, 760. 
 
36 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 " General Assembly — Apr. 13, 1695 — A. M. 
 
 Ordered, That the Speaker of this House take care of the Minutes 
 of this House, and endeavor to get them printed." 
 
 Replying to these resolutions Governor Fletcher in his address to 
 the Assembly says,® "You now desire license to print the Votes. Mr. 
 Speaker knows at the opening of the sessions, if I may call it one, I told 
 him they might be printed de die in diem; but it never was asked before." 
 
 On June 22d, 1695 the Assembly follow up this permission by the 
 following : 
 
 " Ordered, That his Excellency be addressed to order the Printer to 
 print the Daily Votes of this House at the publick charge; and that Mr. 
 Read and Mr. Sebring do wait upon his Excellency with the said address. 
 
 " Mr. Read and Mr. Sebring, returned from his Excellency and 
 reported that his Excellency is very willing the daily Votes of this House, 
 should be printed at the public Charge, but hopes that the House (before 
 the end of the Session), will allow the Printer something of farther 
 encouragement than that already established." 
 
 " Ordered, That the Votes of this House be daily Printed and that 
 the Speaker Issue out his warrant, to the King's Printer, to print the 
 same, at the public Charge accordingly." 
 
 In the Minutes of July 3d, 1695 we read: 
 
 " The House of Representatives, now convened in General Assem- 
 bly address his Excellency and Council, and pray that they will allow, 
 unto William Bradford, his Majesty's Printer for this Province, the 
 yearly salary of Twenty Pounds, current money of this Province, over 
 and above the salary already allowed him, by his Excellency and Council." 
 
 Next day the Council took action;''^ 
 
 " His Excell. did order the reading of an Address from the Assem- 
 bly, wherein they desire an addition of Twenty Pounds per annum to 
 the salary of the printer." 
 
 In 1698 the Earl of Bellomont succeeded Col. Fletcher as Governor 
 and the attitude of the government toward the press became much more 
 stern. But after the coming of Lord Cornbury as Governor, Bradford 
 resumed to a great extent his former relations with the government and 
 during his life so ordered his actions as to become involved in no trouble. 
 Of him Wallace in ending his Address at the Bradford Centenary said 
 
 9 Apr. 13, 1695, Minutes Legislative Council. 
 10 Minutes, Legislative Council, 4 July, 1695. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 37 
 
 " Bradford, we know first planted the printing press in these regions. 
 He first maintained (in Philadelphia) it rights against arbitrary power. 
 . . . What liberty was it the printer exercised, of old? His was a virtu- 
 ous liberty. . . . He worshipped Freedom, but he never thought of 
 Freedom as dissociated with Government. Freedom and Government; 
 Government and Freedom ; complemental ; never to be parted. In his 
 long and active life, passed in many regions and where divers rules 
 prevailed, it was his fortune to be sometimes in opposition to the ruling 
 powers, and sometimes their trusted advocate. But In opposing admin- 
 istrations he respected the principles of government. In devotion to 
 place, he never suffered violence to the spirit of Liberty." 
 
 During the administration of Lord Bellomont the Interests of 
 Leisler's faction In the province were in the ascendant, and those who 
 were of the aristocratic party were, as far as possible displaced from 
 positions of trust and honor. Of this latter party one of the most 
 prominent was Col. Nicholas Bayard, a member of the Council and a 
 large landowner. Him Lord Bellomont removed from the Council, the 
 ground for this action being that " he had advised the printing of a 
 scandalous and malitious pamphlet entitled ' A Letter from a Gentleman 
 In Boston,' casting odium on Leisler." ^^ On Lord Bellomont's death 
 Lieutenant Governor Nanfan assumed the government. He was under 
 the Influence of the Leislerian party, and it was therefore with much 
 delight that Bayard and his friends heard that the King had appointed 
 Lord Cornbury to succeed Lord Bellomont. Addresses were accord- 
 ingly sent by them to the King, the Parliament, and Lord Cornbury. In 
 the addresses there were reflections on Lord Bellomont and Nanfan, the 
 latter being accused of resorting to bribery to have measures passed. 
 On Jan. i6, 1701-2 the Lieutenant Governor and CouncIP^ ordered 
 Alderman Hutchlns (in whose custody the Addresses were) to attend 
 and deliver them. On refusal he was committed to prison, bail being 
 refused. 
 
 Advantage was taken by Nanfan and his friends of certain state- 
 ments in these petitions, and based on a very loose paragraph (in an Act 
 drawn up by Bayard himself and passed by the Assembly In 1691), stat- 
 ing that " whatsoever person or persons shall by any manner of way or 
 upon any pretense whatever endeavor by force of arms or other ways to 
 disturb the peace, good and quiet of their Majesties' government, shall be 
 
 11 Dunlap, Hist. N. Y., I, 239. 
 
 12 Minutes of Council of that date, and Howell State Trials, XIV, p. 473. 
 
38 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 deemed and esteemed as rebels and traitors unto their Majesties and 
 incur the pains, penalties, and forfeitures as the laws of England have for 
 such offenses made and provided," Bayard was then committed to prison 
 as a traitor. The trial which followed is given in Howell's State Trials, 
 Vol. XIV. 
 
 The Attorney General, Broughton, did not appear in the case, hav- 
 ing given an opinion in favor of the accused when called upon by Lieu- 
 tenant Governor Nanfan. The indictment (which was objected to as 
 being, first, brought in by a Grand Jury not entirely composed of citizens, 
 and secondly, as not having been signed by the twelve members of the 
 jury), recites that, "He, Nicholas Bayard, by conspiring as aforesaid 
 . . . did use divers indirect practices and endeavors, to procure mutiny 
 and desertion among the soldiers in pay, belonging to his Majesty's fort 
 and garrison of Fort William Henry, in or near the said city and county 
 of New York aforesaid, and did draw in numbers of them, the said 
 soldiers and others, to sign false and scandalous libels against his 
 Majesty's said government as it is now, and hath for several years last 
 past been established in this province; which said libels, by the procure- 
 ment of the said Nicholas Bayard as aforesaid, were signed by the said 
 soldiers and others, and were likewise signed by him, the said Nicholas 
 Bayard; in one or more of which said libels, among other things highly 
 reflecting on the past and present administration of the government under 
 his Majesty in this province, it is insinuated and declared, that his 
 Majesty's subjects in this province are, and have been for some years 
 last past, by persons entrusted with the administration of the said govern- 
 ment under his Majesty, oppressed; and that the said government hath 
 been, and is rendered cheap and vile in the eyes of the people, and also 
 that the present General Assembly of this province is not a lawful 
 assembly." 
 
 The defense strongly asserted the right of petitioning the King, 
 holding that in no other way could a subject in the colonies oppressed 
 by those in power obtain justice, and that treason consisted only in those 
 things defined in 25 Ed. Ill, wherein no mention of such an act as charged 
 against Col. Bayard is made. 
 
 After admitting the writing of the Address, the defense brought 
 forward for the first time the argument that in a case of libel the jury 
 are judges of the law as well as of the fact, — a most important principle, 
 to be reiterated later in the Zenger case and finally established in Eng- 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 39 
 
 land in the Fox case. In making this point Mr. Emot, as counsel for the 
 defendant, said: 
 
 " I had almost forgot to beg leave of the Court to apply myself to 
 the gentlemen of the jury, to obviate some objections, or rather a vulgar 
 error, that usually hath crept in amongst them on trials, and particularly 
 upon indictments : which is, they do believe. 
 
 That if the matters of fact alleged in the indictment be but proved, 
 they are to have no regard for matters of law; which I take to be a very 
 great and dangerous error in them. 
 
 For though it be true and must be granted, that matters of fact are 
 the most common and proper objects of the jury's determination, and 
 matters of law that of the judges; yet as the law ariseth out of, and is 
 interwoven and complicated with fact, it cannot but fall under the jury's 
 consideration." 
 
 It is also interesting to note that we have here a prisoner on trial 
 for felony allowed counsel, being a century before the privilege was 
 allowed in England. The prisoner was found guilty, as charged in the 
 indictment, of rebellion and treason, and as having procured the signing 
 of libels against the government. The arrival of Lord Cornbury 
 released Bayard and later an order of the Privy Council declared the 
 whole proceedings illegal and void. Wm. Atwood who presided at the 
 trial as Chief Justice fled from the colony and eventually reached Eng- 
 land. In 1703 a Joint Committee was appointed by the Legislative 
 Council and General Assembly ^'^ " to consider a Print or papers brought 
 into the colony from Boston in the case of Wm. Atwood." As no 
 further record in regard to the matter is found, it may be supposed that 
 the matter was not considered of sufficient importance to merit further 
 notice." 
 
 In 1693 Saml. Mulford was a Justice in Suffolk county.^^ He 
 seems to have had a peculiar faculty for embroiling himself with the 
 government, being in a chronic state of opposition to any and every 
 measure proposed. From 1705 to 1720 he was a representative in the 
 General Assembly from the county of Suffolk, and took an active part in 
 the quarrel over the rights of the Crown in the whale fisheries off the 
 coast of Long Island. He was ultimately arrested for " trover for con- 
 
 13 Minutes, General Assembly, May 14, 1703. 
 
 14 On Atwood, vide C. P. Daly in " Green Bag" for Mar. Apr. and May, 1895. 
 
 15 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist, of N. Y., IV, 27. 
 
l/ 
 
 40 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 verting the Queen's goods to his own use " in refusing to pay the tax of 
 one-tenth, and judgment was given against him. 
 
 On April 2d, 17 14, shortly after the opening of the third session of 
 the Fifteenth Assembly he made a speech (of which no record is found 
 in the Minutes of the Assembly) " putting them in mind," as he tells us ^^ 
 " of some ill measures I was informed were taken, and to set things in 
 their true light, that justice might be done among us. There was a Dis- 
 course of having it printed, but the question was not put; however a 
 Copy was desired and taken, which was printed." 
 
 This speech was printed, apparently with the approval of the mem- 
 bers of the Assembly for no action was taken by the body. But when 
 the Sixteenth Assembly came together we find the following in the 
 Minutes of June 2, 1715 : 
 
 " A Motion was made that Capt. Mulford give his reasons to this 
 House, why he printed a Speech, formerly by him made to the General 
 Assembly of the Province, without leave of the House. 
 
 A Motion was made and the Question being put. That Capt. Mul- 
 ford give an account now? It was carried in the affirmative. 
 
 Capt. Mulford being desired by Mr. Speaker to give his Reasons 
 why he printed his said Speech, proceeded to offer his Reasons and then 
 withdrew. 
 
 Then the House proceeded to take the same into consideration. 
 
 A Motion was made. That Capt. Mulford be expelled this House 
 for printing a Speech, formerly made to the General Assembly, without 
 leave of the House, in which are many false and scandalous Reflections 
 upon the Governor of the Province. It was carried in the Affirmative. 
 
 Ordered, That Capt. Mulford be expelled from the House for the 
 said offense." 
 
 On the 9th of June the Speaker issued his Warrant for the election 
 of a member from Suffolk to take Capt. Mulford's place, but no action 
 ensued as the Assembly was prorogued on July 21st and dissolved a 
 month later. 
 
 Meanwhile an indictment charging Mulford with " a High Mis- 
 is Original document quoted in Ross. Hist, of Long Island, I, p. 731. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 4 1 
 
 demeanor, acting contrary to his duty of Allegiance, in manifest Con- 
 tempt of his Majesty, and the Governor of these Provinces, etc., had 
 been lodged with the Grand Jury which, however, indorsed it, " Igno- 
 ramus." An information was then lodged by the Attorney General and 
 on that he was tried in the Supreme Court. His plea of privilege of the 
 House was overruled and the case carried from term to term without a 
 decision being rendered. 
 
 When the Seventeenth Assembly came together on July 5, 17 16, 
 Capt. Mulford was again returned as a member from Suffolk. On June 
 16, he set forth his case to the House, and the following record appears 
 in the Minutes. 
 
 " A motion was made, and the Question was put. That Capt. Mul- 
 ford put the Speech he made this Day in the House, into the Hands of the 
 Clerk of this House. 
 
 It was carried in the Affirmative. 
 
 The matter excited so much attention that the Assembly finally drew 
 up an address to the Governor, Robert Hunter. 
 
 " To His Excellency the Governor." 
 " The Humble Address of the General Assembly of New York." 
 
 " May it Please your Excellency. 
 
 The Assembly being deeply sensible of the Damage and Incon- 
 veniency Mr, Samuel Mulford, A Member of this House, suffers and 
 undergoes, by occasion of a Prosecution against him in the Supream 
 Court, for Printing and Publishing a Speech, formerly made by him in 
 Assembly; are humble suitors to your Excellency, to give Orders that 
 Mr. Mulford, in regard to his great Age, distance of habitation from 
 this City, and other considerations, may be freed and discharged from 
 the said prosecution in the Supream Court. 
 
 To this the Governor replied :^'^ 
 
 " Although the Gentleman named in the Address lay under a Pro- 
 secution, not for a Speech made in their House, But for Publishing and 
 dispersing a false and Malitious Libel, against the Government, (for So 
 it was Termed by the House of Representatives) tending to alienate the 
 affections of the Subjects from the Government, and raising groundless 
 
 17 Minutes, Legislative Council, Aug. 2ist, 1716. 
 
42 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 Jealowsies in the minds of the people and Indeed it had in some measure 
 had that effect. Yet to show them what regard he had, and ever Should 
 have to any applications made to him by that House, So soon as Capt. 
 Mulford should apply to him in a DutifuU manner for what was desired, 
 for as yet he had applied in no manner at all, he would comply with what 
 they had desired of him, and without that he believed that ne'er a one of 
 them could Expect it." 
 
 Mulford refused to submit and went to England where he presented 
 his case so ably that Governor Hunter was ordered by the Lords of 
 Trade ^^ to cease all proceedings against him. 
 
 On his return to New York he took his seat in the House, but on 
 Oct. 26, 1720, was once more expelled, and probably on account of age 
 was not returned when the new Assembly met in 1726. 
 
 In 1734 the enmity between the two political parties in the Province, 
 — the aristocratic, which supported Governor Cosby and was in turn 
 supported by him, and the popular party, in which the leaders were Wm. 
 Smith and James Alexander, had reached a point where little could be 
 needed to introduce open violence. The Gazette, published by Wm. 
 Bradford, was at this time a staid sheet, claiming to be neutral in party 
 strife, but naturally under the circumstances leaning to the side of the 
 government. To offset its influence the New York Weekly Journal was 
 ■^ established under the editorship of John Peter Zenger in the interest of 
 the popular party. Knowing that the strength of the party must lie in 
 the support of the people and that this support could be given effectively 
 only by a people who understood the issues involved, the writers for the 
 Journal put forward the most liberal views in regard to the liberty of the 
 press. It was not a subject which many at that time understood or took 
 any interest in; but the effect of the long continued campaign of articles 
 was to spread the principle not only in the province of New York but 
 even as far away as Charleston where the matter was warmly discussed. 
 
 In the fall of 1734 the annual election of aldermen resulted in a 
 triumph for the popular party. The court party turned on Zenger for 
 revenge, and the Chief Justice, De Lancey, attempted to obtain an indict- 
 t/ ment against Zenger on the ground that he was provoking the citizens 
 to commit acts of treason against the government. The grand jury 
 having refused to do his bidding, the Governor next turned to the Gen- 
 
 18 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., Vol. V, p. 505. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 43 
 
 eral Assembly. In its Minutes for Oct. 17th we find the following 
 record : 
 
 , " A Message from the Council by Philip Cortlandt, in these words, 
 to wit: ' That board having had several of Zenger's Weekly Journals 
 laid before them, and other scurrilous papers, tending to alienate the 
 people of this province from his Majesty's government, to raise seditions 
 and tumults among the people of this province, and to fill their minds 
 with a contempt of his Majesty's government; and considering the per- 
 nicious consequences that may attend such growing evils, if not speedily 
 and effectively put a stop to : And conceiving that the most likely method 
 to put a stop to such bold and seditious practices, to maintain the dignity 
 of his Majesty's government, and to preserve the peace thereof, would be 
 by a Conference between a Committee of this board, and a Committee 
 of the Assembly; it is therefore ordered, that the gentlemen of this board, 
 now assembled, or any seven of them, be a Committee to join a Com- 
 mittee of the House of Representatives, in order to confer together, and 
 to examine and enquire into the said papers, and the authors and writers 
 thereof.' 
 
 Which Message being read; 
 
 Ordered; That the Members of this House, or any fourteen of 
 them, do meet a Committee of the Council, at the time and place therein 
 mentioned." 
 
 On Oct. 1 8th the matter again is taken up: 
 
 "Mr. Gerritsen, from the Committee of this House, reported. That 
 they had, last Night, met the Committee of the Council, on the subject 
 Matter of their Message of Yesterday, to this House, and that after 
 several Preliminaries between the said Committees, the Gentlemen of the 
 Council reduced to writing, what they requested of this House, and 
 delivered the same to the Chairman, who delivered it at the Table; and 
 being read, is in the Words following: 
 
 ' At a Committee of the Council, held the 17th of October, 1734. 
 Present 
 
 Mr. Clarke, Mr. Kennedy, 
 
 Mr. Harrison, Mr. Chief Justice, 
 
 Dr. Colden, Mr. Cortlandt, 
 
 Mr. Livingston, Mr. Lane, 
 
 Mr. Horsmanden. 
 
44 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 The Matters we request your Concurrence in, are that Zenger's 
 Papers, No. 7, 47, 48, 49, and two printed Ballads, which were read, and 
 which we now deliver to be burnt by the Hands of the common Hang- 
 man, as containing in them many things Derogatory of the Dignity of his 
 Majesty's Government, Reflections upon the Legislature, and upon the 
 most considerable Persons in the most distinguished Stations in this Prov- 
 \J ince, and tending to raise Sedition and Tumults among the People 
 thereof. That you concur with us in addressing the Governor to issue 
 his Proclamation, with a Promise of Reward, for the Discovery of the 
 Authors or Writers of these seditious Libels. 
 
 That you concur with us in an Order for prosecuting the Printer 
 thereof. 
 
 That you concur with us in an Order to the Magistrates, to exert 
 themselves in the execution of their Oflices, in order to preserve the 
 public Peace of the Province. 
 
 Per Order of the Committee. 
 
 Frederick Morris, 
 
 Dep. Col. Council.' 
 
 Mr. Garritsen delivered likewise to the House, the several Papers 
 referred to in the said Request. 
 
 Ordered, That the said Papers be lodged with the Clerk of this 
 House, and that the Consideration thereof, and of the said Request, be 
 referred to Tuesday next." 
 
 And again on Oct. 22d: 
 
 " The House, (according to Order) proceeded to take into Con- 
 sideration, the Request of a Committee of the Council, delivered to a 
 Committee of this House, on the i8th instant; as likewise of the several 
 Papers therein referred to, and after several Debates upon the subject 
 matter thereof, it was, 
 
 Ordered, That the said Request and Papers lie on the Table." 
 
 The Council, finding the Assembly would take no action in the 
 matter, sent the following message to the House: ''-* 
 
 " A Message from the Council, by Mr. Livingston, desiring the 
 House to return, (by him) to that Board, the several seditious Journals 
 
 19 Nov. 2, 1734, Minutes of General Assemblj'. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 45 
 
 of Zenger's, No. 7, 47> 48, 49> and two printed Ballads, which were 
 delivered by a Committee of that Board, to a Committee of this House, 
 the seventeenth of October last, together with the Proposals of the Com- 
 mittee of that Board, delivered therewith, to a Committee of this House; 
 and then he withdrew. 
 
 Ordered, That the Clerk of this House, produce the said Papers; 
 then Mr. Livingston being called in, Mr. Speaker delivered to him all 
 the said Papers and Proposals, accordingly, and then he withdrew." 
 
 The next extract is from the Minutes of the Legislative Council for 
 Nov. 2d, 1734- 
 
 " In pursuance of an Order of this Board of the 17th of October 
 last, a Committee of this Board having met a Committee of the House of 
 Representatives ... but the Board, finding by a Journal of the Votes 
 of that House, that the matters proposed to their Committee were 
 ordered to lye on the table, and conceiving it highly necessary to give a 
 Check to such virulent and seditious Libells, as are dispersed throughout 
 Zenger's Journal to maintain the dignity of his Majesty's Government, 
 and to preserve the peace thereof, they therefore resolved mto a Com- 
 mittee to consider of the same. On which his Excellency withdrew. 
 
 The Committee having duely weighed and considered the same, and 
 finding that the whole tenour of most (if not all) of those papers now 
 under their consideration, and particularly those Journalls entitled " The 
 New York Weekly Journall, Containing the Freshest advices foreign 
 and domestick," printed by said Zenger and numbered 7, 47' 4B, 49^ 
 have a direct tendency to raise Sedition and Tumults among the people 
 of this Province, to inflame their minds with a Contempt of his Majesty s 
 rightful Government, and Just prerogative, and disturb the peace thereof, 
 and containing in them likewise not only reflections upon his Excellency 
 the Governor in particular, the Legislature in general, but also upon the 
 most considerable persons In the most distinguished stations in this prov- 
 ince. It is therefore unanimously 
 
 Resolved, by this Committee that those Journalls of Zenger as 
 above mentioned be burnt by the hands of the common hangman or 
 whipper near the pillory in this city on Wednesday the 6th instant, 
 between the hours of Eleven and twelve in the forenoon, that the Sheriff 
 be ordered to see it effectually done, and that the Mayor and other 
 Magistrates of this city do attend at the burning thereof. 
 
46 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 That his Excellency be requested to issue his Proclamation with a 
 -^reward of £50 for the discovery of the author or authors of said 
 Journalls. 
 
 That Zenger the printer thereof be by order of this Board taken 
 Into custody by the Sheriff and Committed to prison. 
 
 That an Order of this Board be sent to the Magistrates of the 
 respective Countys within this province diligently to exert themselves 
 in the execution of their respective offices in order to preserve the publick 
 peace. 
 
 And on the Chief Justice withdrawing it is further 
 
 Resolved, that an Order of the Board be sent to the Attorney 
 General to prosecute the printer and Author or Authors thereof when 
 discovered. 
 
 His Excellency returning to the Council Chamber the above resolu- 
 tions were read and reported at the Board by Mr. Clarke, Chairman of 
 the Committee, and 
 
 On the Question being put, the same was unanimously agreed to and 
 approved of by this Board." 
 
 The Mayor and Magistrates refused either to attend the burning 
 or to allow the hangman to be present, and accordingly the work was 
 done by a negro servant of the Sheriff while a small group from the 
 f/court party looked on. Zenger was then arrested, and after being 
 released on excessive bail, and the grand jury having refused to find a 
 bill, he was finally brought to trial, on an Information of the Attorney 
 General, for printing arid publishing parts of the Journals Nos. 13 and 
 23, as being false, scandalous, malitious and seditious. The passages 
 specificately objected to were the following; the first, in No. 13; — " Your 
 appearance in print, at last, gives a pleasure to many, though most wish 
 you had come fairly into the open field, and not appeared behind retrench- 
 ments made of the supposed laws against libelling, and of what other 
 men have said and done before. These retrenchments, gentlemen, may 
 soon be shown to you, and all men, to be weak, and to have neither law 
 nor reason for their foundation, so cannot long stand you in stead; 
 Therefore you had much better as yet leave them, and come to what the 
 people of this city and province think are the points in question ; they 
 think, as matters now stand, that their liberties and properties are pre- 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 47 
 
 carious, and that slavery Is like to be entailed upon them and their poster- 
 ity, if some past thing be not amended; and this they collect from many 
 past proceedings; " and the second in No. 23 ; — " One of our neighbors," 
 (from New Jersey) " being in company, observing the strangers " (from 
 New York) , " full of complaints, endeavored to persuade them to remove 
 into New Jersey; to which it was replied, That would be leaping out of 
 the frying-pan into the fire; for, says he, we both are under the same 
 governor, and your assembly have shewn with a witness what is to be 
 expected from them; one that was then moving to Pennsylvania, to which 
 place it is reported several considerable men are removing, expressed in 
 terms very moving, much concern for the circumstances of New York, 
 seemed to think them very much owing to the influence that some men 
 had in the administration, said he was now going from them, and was 
 not to be hurt by any measures they should take, but could not help hav- 
 ing some concern for the welfare of his countrymen, and should be glad 
 to hear that the Assembly would exert themselves as became them, by 
 showing that they have the interest of their country more at heart, than 
 the gratification of any private view of any of their members, or being at 
 all affected by the smiles or frowns of a governor, both which ought 
 equally to be despised, when the interest of their country is at stake. 
 You, says he, complain of the lawyers, but I think the law itself is at an 
 end. We see men's deeds destroyed, judges arbitrarily displaced, new 
 courts erected without consent of the legislature, by which it seems to 
 me, trials by jury are taken away when a governor pleases, men of known 
 estates denied their votes, contrary to the received practice, the best 
 exposition of any law ; Who is then in that province that can call anything 
 his own, or enjoy any liberty, longer than those in the administration will 
 condescend to let them do it, for which reason I have left it, as I believe 
 more will." 
 
 James Alexander and Wm. Smith, the lawyers defending Zenger, 
 were disbarred by Chief Justice De Lancey for questioning the legality 
 of the commission of the court, and it was thought that Zenger must be 
 y convicted since there was no one in the province of equal ability to defend 
 ' him. But Andrew Hamilton, the most famous lawyer of the times in 
 Pennsylvania, was summoned from Philadelphia and took charge of the 
 case. He began by admitting the fact of publication: " I cannot think 
 it proper for me," he said, "(without doing violence to my own prin- 
 ciples), to deny the publication of a complaint, which, I think, is the right 
 of every free born citizen to make, when the matters so published can be 
 
48 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 supported with truth." But when the Attorney General, at this admis- 
 sion, called at once for a conviction, Hamilton replied, " Not so, neither, 
 Mr. Attorney, you have something more to do; the words must be proved 
 libellous, that is, false, scandalous, and seditious, or else they are not 
 guilty." 
 
 The scene that ensued was a remarkable one. On one side were 
 the Chief Justice and the Attorney General, taking the position that the 
 only question before the jury was the fact of publication; and that the 
 /maxim " The greater the truth the greater the libel " held, the defendant 
 not being permitted to give the truth of the libel, in evidence: — on the 
 other side was Hamilton, arguing that the Star Chamber practice had died 
 with the Star Chamber, and that the jury had the right to determine 
 both the law and the fact. Speaking of the position in which men were 
 placed when wronged by those in authority, he said, 
 
 " It is natural, it is a privilege, — I will go farther, it is a right which 
 all free men claim, and are entitled to, to complain when they are hurt; 
 they have a right publicly to remonstrate against the abuses of power, in 
 the strongest terms, to put their neighbors upon their guard against the 
 craft or open violence of men in authority, and to assert with courage the 
 sense they have of the blessings of liberty, the value they put upon it, and 
 their resolution at all hazards to preserve it, as one of the greatest 
 
 blessings heaven can bestow I beg leave to insist that the 
 
 right of complaining or remonstrating is natural; and the restraint upon 
 this natural right is the law only, and that those restraints can only extend 
 
 to what is false Truth ought to govern the whole affair 
 
 of libels." 
 
 He then went on to show how difficult it was to determine precisely 
 what a libel was, and in exactly what it consisted, illustrating his remarks 
 from different periods of English history to prove how ideas had 
 changed, and after dwelling on the danger of lodging an excess of power 
 in any man, as in giving a judge on the bench the right to determine the 
 law in a libel case, he added, 
 
 " Power may justly be compared to a great river; while kept within 
 its due bounds, it is both beautiful and useful; but when it overflows its 
 banks, it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before 
 it, and brings destruction and desolation wherever it goes. If then this 
 Is the nature of power, let us at least do our duty, and like wise men, 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 49 
 
 (who value freedom,) use our utmost care to support liberty, the only 
 bulwark against lawless power, which, in all ages, has sacrificed to its 
 wild lust and boundless ambition, the blood of the best men that ever 
 lived. 
 
 "I hope to be pardoned. Sir, for my zeal upon this occasion: 
 it is an old and wise caution, ' That when our neighbor's house is on fire, 
 we ought to take care of our own.' For though, blessed be God, I live 
 in a government where liberty is well understood, and freely enjoyed; 
 yet experience has shown us all, (I'm sure it has to me,) that a bad prec- 
 edent in one government is soon set up for an authority in another; and 
 therefore I cannot but think it mine, and every honest man's duty, that, 
 (while we pay due obedience to men in authority,) we ought at the same 
 time to be on our guard against power, wherever we apprehend that it 
 may affect ourselves, or our fellow-subjects. 
 
 " I am truly unequal to such an undertaking, on many accounts. 
 And you see I labor under the weight of many years, and am borne down 
 by many infirmaties of body; yet old and weak as T am I should think it 
 my duty, if required, to go to the utmost part of the land, where my serv- 
 ice could be of any use in assisting to quench the flame of prosecutions 
 upon informations set on foot by the government, to deprive a people of 
 the right of remonstrating, (and complaining too,) of the arbitrary 
 attempts of men in power. Men who injure and oppress the people 
 under their administration, provoke them to cry out and complain, and 
 then make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and 
 prosecutions. I wish I could say there were no instances of this kmd. 
 But to conclude, the question before the Court and you, gentlemen of the 
 jury, is not of small or private concern; it is not the cause of a poor 
 printer, nor of New York alone, which you are trying. No ! it may, m 
 its consequences, affect every freeman that lives under a British govern- 
 ment, on the main of America. It is the best cause; it is the cause of 
 liberty; and I make no doubt but your upright conduct, this day, will 
 not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow citizens, but 
 every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery, will bless and honor 
 you as. men who have baffled the attempts of tyranny; and by an impar- 
 tial and uncorrupt verdict, have laid a noble foundation for securing to 
 ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbors, that to which nature and the 
 laws of our country have given us a right— the liberty— both of exposing 
 and opposing arbitrary power in those parts of the world at least, by 
 speaking and writing truth." (Rutherfurd, John Peter Zenger, p. 123.) 
 
50 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 The Chief Justice In summing up said that as the facts or words In 
 the Information were confessed, the only thing that could come before 
 the jury was whether the words, as set forth in the Information, made a 
 hbel; " and that," he said, " is a matter of law, no doubt, and which you 
 may leave to the Court." 
 
 The jury remained out but a short time, and then returned with a 
 verdict of " Not Guilty," a result which was hailed with exuberant joy 
 by the large gathering in the Hall. Before Hamilton's return to Phila- 
 delphia, the Freedom of the Corporation was presented to him in these 
 words, 
 
 "City of Nezv York, SS. 
 
 " Paul Richards, Esqr. the Recorder, Aldermen and Assistants of 
 the City of New York, convened in Common Council, to all to whom 
 these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas honor is the true reward 
 of virtue, and public benefits demand a public acknowledgement; We 
 therefore, under a grateful sense of the remarkable service done to the 
 inhabitants of this City and Colony by Andrew Hamilton, Esqr. of 
 Pennsylviana, barrister at law, by his learned and generous defense of 
 the rights of mankind, and the liberty of the press, in the case of John 
 Peter Zenger, lately tried on an Information exhibited in the Supreme 
 Court of this Colony, do, by these presents, bear to the said Andrew 
 Hamilton, Esqr. with the public thanks of the freemen of this Corpora- 
 tion for that signal service, which he cheerfully undertook under great 
 indisposition of body, and generously performed, refusing any fee or 
 reward; and in testimony of our great esteem for his person, and sense of 
 his merit, do hereby present him with the Freedom of this Corporation. 
 These are therefore to certify and declare, that the said Andrew Hamil- 
 ton, Esqr. is here by admitted, received and allowed a freeman and 
 citizen of the said City; to have, hold, enjoy and partake of all the 
 benefits, liberties, privileges, freedoms and immunities whatsoever, 
 granted or belonging to a freeman and citizen of the said City. 
 
 In testimony whereof, the Common Council of the said City, in 
 Common Council assembled, have caused the seal of the said City to be 
 hereunto affixed, this 29th day of September, A. D. 1735. 
 
 By Order of the Common Council. Wm. Sharpas, Clerk." 
 
 In September, 1743, Governor George Clinton arrived from Eng- 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 5 1 
 
 land. Party strife had not disappeared after the Zenger trial, — in fact it 
 had become intensified, for those who were opposed to the court party felt 
 that their only chance to gain influence and power was through continu- 
 ing their opposition and gradually establishing themselves as a party 
 striving for the liberty of the people of the colony. 
 
 At the same time the court party became involved in internal dis- 
 putes. By 1746 Governor Clinton had transferred his confidence from 
 De Lancey to Cadwallader Colden, and in Indian matters was displaying 
 great incompetency, refusing to take the advice of the majority of his 
 Council. For this reason, when in the Summer of 1746 he made a trip 
 to Albany to treat with the Iroquois, (who were supposed to be waver- 
 ing in their allegiance to Great Britain,) the members of the Council, 
 with the exception of Cadwallader Colden and Philip Livingston, refused 
 to accompany him. 
 
 In December the trouble in the Council became known to the public 
 and was taken up at the Council Board. In the Minutes of the Council 
 for Dec. 4th, 1746, we find the following: "Mr. Chief Justice 
 De Lancey took notice. That as the business of this Session was now 
 compleated he had something to offer to the Council, which arose from 
 the perusal of a pamphlet that had lately fallen into his hands Entituled, 
 ' A Treaty between his Excellency and the Six united Indian Nations 
 depending on the province of New York, held at Albany in the months 
 of August and September, 1746, (which pamphlet he had in his hands,) 
 wherein was a paragraph, page 3, in the words following viz, 
 
 ' His Excellency the Governor of New York having received his 
 Majesty's Commands to engage the Indian Nations depending on his 
 Government to join in the expedition then intended against Canada, and 
 to make them the usual presents on that occasion; and being sensible of 
 the great use these Nations may be to the success of this Enterprize and 
 likewise of the difl^culties that probably might attend his Endeavors at 
 this time, was desirous to have had the assistance of as many of the 
 members of his Majesty's Council as the Circumstances of affairs would 
 admit; but they all declined to give their attendance except Mr. Colden 
 and Mr. Livingston. His Excellency was therefore obliged to Act with 
 the smallest number of members which by his Majesty's Commission can 
 form a Council, viz. Three; The above two Gentlemen and Capt. Ruth- 
 erford, who was then at his post in Albany.' 
 
52 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 Which paragraph, he conceived, did contain a Misrepresentation of 
 Facts and an invidious reflection upon such of the members of his 
 Majesty's Council as did not attend his Excellency to Albany." 
 
 Chief Justice De Lancey then went on to say that he moved that 
 the Printer might be sent for and examined to find out who had given 
 him the copy. Upon this Mr. Colden admitted having given the copy 
 and after some attempts at equivocation also admitted having ordered 
 its publication, and that he was the author, but in extenuation of his 
 action said he had had no intention of reflecting on any of the members 
 of the Council. 
 
 The Council then proceeded to pass a vote of censure on the 
 pamphlet, and, since it had been published, ordered the proceedings of 
 the Council to be printed for the information of the people. 
 
 It is interesting in this case to note that the Council makes no threat 
 of proceeding against the printer, although it asserts the right of calling 
 him to the bar, and examining him, but contents itself with publishing 
 a justification of its position, ordering it to be disseminated among the 
 inhabitants of the province by means of the printing-press. It seems like 
 an unwilling admission of the fact that the press had become a power in 
 the land, and at the same time of a desire to use it to win the Council's 
 point in the dispute. 
 
 That the public was taking a far greater interest than formerly in 
 the discussions between the several branches of the government, and in 
 the proceedings of the bodies themselves was evidenced from time to 
 time by attempts on the part of the Assembly to restrict the freedom of 
 printing. For example, when the Twenty-fourth Assembly came together 
 on June 25, 1745, it was at once,^'^ 
 
 " Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this House, be 
 printed from Time to Time, being first perused and signed by the 
 Speaker; and that no other Person but such as he shall appoint, do pre- 
 sume to print the same." 
 
 This order and prohibition we find repeated at the beginning of 
 each session during the colonial period until the Revolution. 
 
 The administration of Governor George Clinton is very important 
 on the side of Constitutional growth, since it is now that the General 
 
 20 Minutes, General Assembly for that date. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 53 
 
 Assembly for the first time clearly enunciates the principles of self-govern- 
 ment and the right not only to vote the taxes but to determine the ways 
 in which the money shall be expended. In 1747 the colonies were 
 engaged in war with France, and it was of the greatest importance that 
 the outposts and fortified places on the Canadian border should be 
 adequately garrisoned and amply supplied with provisions and munitions 
 of war. Clinton was striving to assert the principle of royal prerogative 
 in the matter of money-bills, a right which Governor Clarke had allowed 
 to slip away from him. This attempt the General Assembly naturally 
 resisted, and as a result is reproached by the Governor with neglecting 
 to provide him with the money necessary to keep the province properly 
 defended against the French. In the Minutes of the General Assembly 
 of Oct. 8th, 1747, appears the following Message from the Governor, 
 
 '' Gentlemen, 
 
 By your Votes I understand you are going upon Things very foreign 
 to what I recommended you : I will receive nothing from you at this 
 critical Juncture, but what relates to the Message I last sent you, viz. 
 By all Means, immediately to take the preservation of your Frontiers, 
 and the Fidelity of the Indians, into consideration : The Loss of a Day 
 may have fatal Consequences; when that is over, you may have Time 
 enough to go upon any other Matters. G. Clinton.'^ 
 
 The next day the House took into consideration the Governor's 
 Message, and after a rather theatric locking of the door and laying the 
 key on the table (as though, as Clinton says in his Message of Oct. 13th, 
 some one were attempting to break in,) drew up a set of Resolutions to 
 be delivered to the Governor, in which his Message was declared to be 
 an attempt to subvert the rights, privileges, and immunities of the House. 
 In addition a long document, called " A Humble Remonstrance of the 
 House on the present State and Condition of the Colony," was ordered 
 carried by a committee to the Governor. This document, which had 
 taken a Committee several days to draw up, was a long and detailed state- 
 ment of the Assembly's side of the quarrel and an attempt to show that the 
 wretched state of the colony's affairs was due to the tactics of delay made 
 use of by the Governor and not to any fault of the Assembly which was 
 very willing to grant money provided it had some assurance that the 
 sums voted would be expended for the purposes designated. This 
 Remonstrance the Governor refused to receive, and by his Secretary 
 directed James Parker, the ofl^icial printer, not to print it in the proceed- 
 
54 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 ings of the Assembly; this direction was not heeded by Parker, a step 
 which brought out from the Governor the following Order : 
 
 " By His Excellency the Honourable George Clinton, Captain 
 General and Governor in Chief, of the Province of New York, etc. 
 
 To Mr. James Parker, Printer to the General Assembly of the 
 Province of New York. 
 
 Whereas some Persons, calling themselves a Committee of the 
 General Assembly of this Province, came into an Apartment of my 
 House, on the 9th instant, while I was engaged in my private affairs; 
 and without the least previous Notice, one of them offered to read a 
 large bundle of Paper, which he said was a Remonstrance from that 
 House, and desired my Leave to read the same, which I absolutely 
 refused, or to have it left with me; and whereas the Speaker of the said 
 General Assembly hath, in disregard to my Authority and Person, 
 ordered the same to be printed by you in their Votes, although I fore- 
 warned you by my Secretary not to do it; but as you afterwards signified 
 to him, that a Verbal Order was not sufficient to forbid you printing any 
 Thing to that Purpose; 
 
 I do hereby in his Majesty's Name, expressly forbid you or any 
 other person in this Province, to re-print or otherwise publish, the said 
 Paper, called, a Remonstrance of the General Assembly of this Province, 
 as you and they shall answer the same at your and their Peril; the said 
 Paper, containing many false, scandalous and malicious Aspersions on 
 me, as Governor of this Province; and I do hereby, further require you, 
 to give publick Notice of this my Order, by publishing the same in your 
 next News-Paper; and for your so doing, this shall be the warrant. 
 
 Given under my Hand, at the City of New York, October 
 24th, 1747.21 
 
 G. Clinton." 
 
 This Order having duly appeared in Parker's New York Gazette 
 and Post Boy, the Speaker on Oct. 26th reported it to the House and 
 requested " that the House would vindicate his Conduct therein." 
 Accordingly Parker was ordered to appear before the body. He came 
 the next day and produced Clinton's order in justification of his action, 
 and the Assembly then passed the following resolutions; -^ 
 
 21 Minutes, General Assembly, Oct. 27, 1747. 
 
 22 Minutes, General Assembly, Oct. 27, 1747. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 55 
 
 Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That it is the undoubted Right 
 of the People of this Colony, to know the Proceedings of their Represen- 
 tatives in General Assembly, and that any Attempt to prevent their Pro- 
 ceedings being printed and published, is a Violation of the Rights and 
 Liberties of the People of this Colony. 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That any Attempt to prohibit 
 the printing or re-printing of any of the Proceedings of this House, is 
 an infringement of the Privileges of this House, and of the People they 
 represent. 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the Humble Remon- 
 strance of this House, of the 9th instant, though his Excellency, (con- 
 trary to the uninterrupted Usage in such Cases,) refused to receive it, 
 was, notwithstanding, a regular Proceeding of this House. 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That his Excellency's Order to 
 forbid the printing or re-printing the said Remonstrance, is unwarrant- 
 able, arbitrary and illegal, and not only an open and manifest Violation 
 of the Privileges of this House, but also of the Liberty of the Press, and 
 evidently tends to the utter subversion of all the Rights and Liberties of 
 this House, and of the People they represent. 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That Mr. Speaker's ordering 
 the said Remonstrance to be printed with the Votes and Proceedings of 
 this House, is regular, and entirely consistent with the Duty of his Office 
 as Speaker of this House." 
 
 On Nov. 1 2th a further step was taken, when Col. Lewis Morris 
 made the following Motion, which was carried; 
 
 " The late Order in Parker's Paper, ordering him as Printer of this 
 House, not to publish or print the Proceedings of this House, is an 
 Attempt to deprive the People of these Colonies of their Liberties; I 
 therefore move, that we order him to reprint our Humble Remonstrance 
 to his Excellency, and that he deliver ten Copies to each member of this 
 House, that our Constituents may know, that it is our firm Resolution 
 to preserve the Liberty of the Press, and to communicate our proceedings 
 to them, that they may judge of our Conduct." 
 
 The Governor up to this time had said nothing on the subject, but 
 in his Speech dissolving the Assembly on Nov. 25, ^^ he breaks his silence 
 
 23 Minutes of General Assembly of that date. 
 
56 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 and argues the matter at length. He begins by saying that their action 
 has a very dangerous likeness to a desire to grasp the executive power, a 
 result which would be destructive of their dependency on Great Britain, 
 and of which the people of Great Britain might become jealous. He 
 then goes on to show that their conduct is not only wanting in respect to 
 their Sovereign, since the Governor is his representative, but even want- 
 ing in ordinary manliness and honesty, since they are striking at one who, 
 (on account of his position,) cannot retaliate. The question as to whether 
 the paper is not a false, scandalous and malicious libel he left to his 
 superiors in England. He ends his statement of the matter, " As to the 
 popular Out-cry you endeavor to raise, of the Liberty of the Press, I shall 
 only say, that certainly this Liberty, as well as any other may be abused, 
 to the injury of others; if an injury is done, a proper Remedy ought to be 
 applied; and such a Remedy can never be thought a Restraint of any just 
 Liberty. I am persuaded that no considerate man can think, that I 
 offered any Obstruction to the Liberty of the Press, by forbidding the 
 Printer to publish that one Paper at his Peril; if no Peril in doing it, 
 neither the author nor Publishers of it can suffer by the Order; the 
 proper Judges may in Time show, whether I did a Service or a Disservice 
 to any, by such Warning." 
 
 The Twenty-fifth Assembly came together in the Spring of 1748 
 and the old quarrel was resumed. On reassembling for the second Ses- 
 sion in September an Address was drawn up in which former complaints 
 were reiterated, and which the Governor refused to receive.^* The 
 Address was then printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly, 
 and on Nov. 1 2th the Governor, in proroguing the Assembly, took 
 occasion to complain of their method of procedure. 
 
 " In whatever your Governor and you differ, there is a legal Method 
 for Redress. In my Message to you, I told you that I would do the 
 Justice, to send a Copy of that Paper, which you call an Address, to his 
 Majesty's Ministers; which is sending it to the proper Tribunal for 
 Redress, if I have done you any injury, by my refusing to receive it; but 
 you seem to decline this legal Method; and by your publishing that 
 Paper, under the name of an Address, in your Votes, and afterwards in 
 a publick News Paper, published by the Printer of your Votes; you seem 
 to place the dernier Resort in all Disputes between you and your Gov- 
 ernor, in the Populace; how his Majesty may take this, or how a Parlia- 
 
 2-* Minutes, General Assembly, Oct. 19 and Oct. 21. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 57 
 
 ment of Great Britain, may take your claiming, not only the Privileges 
 of Parliament, but Privileges far beyond what any House of Commons 
 ever claimed, deserves your most serious consideration." -^ 
 
 Governor George Clinton was succeeded by Sir Danvers Osborne in 
 the summer of 1753, but the latter meeting with a violent death the gov- 
 ernment devolved on James Delancey, the Lieutenant-Governor. The 
 latter in his speech at the coming together of the Assembly took occasion 
 to quote certain paragraphs from the Instructions given to Sir Danvers 
 Osborne. These would naturally be of interest to all in the colony, and 
 Hugh Galne, the printer of the New York Mercury, published the para- 
 graphs in his next Issue. This provoked comment and the Assembly at 
 once took action. ^^ 
 
 " The House being informed that one Hugh Gaine, a printer, In the 
 City of New York, had presumed In his Paper, called, the New York 
 Mercury, of Monday, November the 12th, 1753, No. 66, to print and 
 publish Part of the Proceedings of this House, particularly several 
 articles of his Majesty's Instructions to his Excellency, the late Sir Dan- 
 vers Osborne, Baronet; and the said Paper being produced, and read, 
 
 " Ordered, That the said Hugh Gaine, attend this House To-mor- 
 row, at 10 o'clock In the morning. 
 
 " Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms, attending this House, serve 
 the said Hugh Gaine, with a Copy of this Order forthwith." 
 
 Next day Hugh Gaine appeared at the Bar of the House; " being 
 asked, whether he was the Printer of the Paper, called the New York 
 Mercury, he acknowledged that he was; and then being asked, by what > 
 Authority he had therein printed and published an Extract of the Votes ^ 
 of this House; answered, that he had no Authority for doing It, and 
 knew not that he did amiss in doing so; and that he was very sorry that 
 he had offended the House, and humbly asked their Pardon." -^ 
 
 The result was that after the matter had been discussed In the y 
 House the printer was called in, reprimanded, and allowed to go, on pay- 
 ing the costs. 
 
 In 1756 James Parker, who had in 1747 braved the wrath of Gov- 
 
 25 Minutes, General Assembly of that date. 
 
 26 Minutes, General Assembly, Nov. 13, 1753. 
 
 27 Minutes, General Assembly, Nov. 14, 1753. 
 
58 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 ernor Clinton in order to obey the Speaker of the House, himself fell 
 into disgrace. Parker and Wm. Weyman were at this time joint owners 
 of the New York Gazette, or the Weekly Post Boy, and on the 15th of 
 March, published an article entitled " Observations on the Circumstances 
 and Conduct of the People in the Counties of Ulster and Orange, in the 
 Province of New York." 
 
 The Assembly at its meeting on the i6th took the matter up on the 
 ground that it reflected on the conduct and composition of the House. 
 The Serjeant at Arms was directed to bring the printers to the Bar. 
 Parker was out of town, but Weyman appeared, and being asked how he 
 /had come to print it said that he done so merely as a piece of news, and 
 went on to say that he believed it to have been written by the Rev. 
 Hezekiah Watkins, a clergyman of Newburgh, Ulster County, and that 
 he was heartily sorry for the mistake. The House then; ^^ 
 
 " Resolved, That the Piece contains sundry inso- 
 lent, false, and malicious Expressions, calculated to misrepresent the con- 
 duct of the Representatives of the People of this Colony. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Author of the said Piece has attempted by 
 false and m.alicious Misrepresentations, to irritate the People of this 
 Colony against their Representatives in General Assembly, and is there- 
 fore guilty of a high Misdemeanor and a Contempt of the Authority of 
 this House. 
 
 " Resolved, That James Parker and Wm. Weyman, for having 
 published the said Piece in their Weekly Paper, are guilty of a high Mis- 
 demeanor and a Contempt of the Authority of this House. 
 
 " Resolved, That James Parker and Wm. Weyman, be for their 
 said offense, taken into the Custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending 
 this House." 
 
 Four days later Parker presented a petition setting forth that on 
 receiving news of what had happened he had at once returned and sur- 
 rendered himself; that the writer of the piece was Mr. Watkins, as he 
 could easily prove; and the petition goes on to say " that when he received 
 the said Piece, he thought it contained sundry indecent Expressions, and 
 thereupon struck them out, but is sorry that he left sundry Matters, which 
 though they seemed not to be malignant to him at the Time, appear now 
 to be so; that he humbly confesses his fault In printing the said Piece; 
 
 28 Minutes, General Assembly, March 19, 1756. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 59 
 
 that he had no design to give Offense thereby, promised to be more cir- 
 cumspect for the future, and humbly begs the pardon of the honourable 
 House: And therefore humbly praying (having long experienced the 
 Kindness of the Honourable House) a Dismission from the Custody in 
 which he now is." 
 
 A week later the House took the matter up, and a motion to that 
 effect having been made by Capt. Richard, Parker and Weyman were 
 discharged from custody. 
 
 The House having been prorogued shortly after this, it was not 
 until it came together again that the matter of the Revd. Mr. Watkins 
 received attention. On Oct. 15, 1756, a motion was made by Capt. Wal- 
 ton that Mr. Watkins be ordered to attend the House. Accordingly he 
 appeared on the 22nd and admitted the fact of authorship said that he ^ 
 had had no intention of acting disrespectfully but that the condition of 
 affairs in Ulster and Orange Counties had caused his zeal for the wel- 
 fare of the people to carry him too far; and that he was heartily sorry. 
 In spite of his explanation he was ordered into the custody of the Ser- 
 geant at iVrms, and the Minutes of the next day (Oct. 23,) set forth his 
 Petition in which he went over at greater length the explanation he had 
 given orally the day before. After some discussion of the matter he 
 was ordered to be brought to the Bar of the House where he was repri- 
 manded by the Speaker and then discharged. 
 
 Another case very similar to the last was that of Samuel Townsend, 
 a Justice of the Peace of Queen's County. Some of the so-called 
 *' Neutral French " had been quartered upon Long Island, and Samuel y 
 Townsend wrote, in reference to their uncared for condition and mis- 
 fortunes, a letter to the Speaker which the latter laid before the Assembly 
 on Mar. 16, 1758, and Townsend was ordered to appear and explain the 
 matter. Having examined him the House ^^ 
 
 " Resolved, That the letter contains sundry inde- 
 cent and insolent Expressions, reflecting on the Honour, Justice and 
 Authority of this House. 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the said Samuel Town- 
 send, for writing and sending the said Letter, is guilty of a high Misde- 
 meanor and a most daring Insult, on the Honour, Justice, and Authority 
 of this House. 
 
 29 Minutes, General Assembly, Mar. 23, 1758. 
 
6o LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 " Ordered, That the said Samuel Townsend remain in the Custody 
 of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House." 
 
 Next day a long petition was presented in which Townsend begged 
 " leave, humbly to express his Uneasiness and Sorrow, for having wrote 
 the said Letter; and at the same time, to declare that he did not intend 
 thereby to cast any Reflection upon the Conduct or Dignity of this House, 
 and that he shall for the future be more cautious to avoid every occasion 
 of exposing himself to their Censure or Reproof. 
 
 " Your Petitioner therefore most humbly Prays, that the sincere 
 Acknowledgement of his Sorrow and Uneasiness may prevail upon this 
 honourable House, to treat him with all that Levity and Compassion, 
 to which the Innocence of his Intention herein declared, and the real 
 Regard he has for the Honour of this House, may entitle him, and dis- 
 charge him from the Custody of the Sergeant at Arms." 
 
 After this had been read Townsend was ordered to the Bar, and; 
 having been reprimanded by the Speaker, was discharged. 
 
 The growing dissatisfaction with the home government was fanned 
 into open opposition when the news arrived in the colonies that the 
 Ministry, not content with the restrictions which it had placed upon the 
 growing trade of the Atlantic coast towns, had decided to introduce 
 direct taxation by a duty on stamped paper. The popular press in New 
 York was filled with articles against the Stamp Act, but these articles 
 were far exceeded in number and influence by handbills which were posted 
 throughout the town, and read and discussed by all the inhabitants. The 
 Assembly passed all this over, in silence, tacitly permitting what but a 
 short time before would have brought any one suspected of complicity in 
 the writing or printing of the same to its Bar. 
 
 But a peculiarly offensive piece of writing finally was taken notice 
 of. It was about a month after the riot of Nov. ist, 1765, (when the 
 Stamp Act was due to go into effect,) on which occasion some damage 
 had been done to the fort and batteries, that, ■^" " Mr. Lott, Clerk to 
 this House, presented on the 26th instant, a sealed Letter to the House, 
 directed in the words following, viz. ' To the General Assembly of the 
 Province of New York.' Which Letter was delivered to him, the said 
 Lott, by his Clerk who had received it from a Person unknown ; and was 
 enclosed in another Letter directed, ' To Mr. Lott, Mercht. in New 
 
 "*J Minutes, General Assembly, Nov. 29th, 1765. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 6l 
 
 York,' and the same being read, was in the words following: ' on Receiv- 
 ing you are to read the in Closed in the open assembly of this Province 
 New York as you are Clark and whare of fail not on your perrel. 
 
 (Signed) Freedom.' 
 
 And then the Letter addressed to the General Assembly being 
 opened and also read, was in the Words following : ' Gentlemen of the 
 House of Representatives you are to consider what is to be Done first 
 Drawing of as much money from the Lieut. Governors Sallery as will 
 Repare the fort and on Spike the Guns on the Battery and the next a 
 Repeal of the Gunning Act and then thare will be a good Militia but 
 not before and also as you are asetting you may Consider of the Build- 
 ing Act as it is to take place nex yeare wich it Cannot for thare is no 
 Supply of Some Sort of meterials Require'd this Law is not Ground on 
 Reasons but thare is a Grate many Reasons to the Contrary do Gentle- 
 men we desire you will Do what Lays in your power for the Good of the 
 public but if you take this ill be not so Conceited as to Say or think that 
 other People know noting about Government you have made these Laws 
 and say they are Right but they are Rong and take a way Liberty, 
 Oppressons of your make Gentlemen make us Sons of Liberty think you 
 are not for the Public Liberty, this is the General Opinion for this part 
 of Your Conduct. by order 
 
 Signd. one and all 
 
 Freedom ' 
 1765 Nov. 26. 
 
 " The House then proceeded to the Consideration of the said 
 Letters, and having fully weighed and Examined the same; 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, 
 
 " That, said Letters are Libellous, Scandalous and Seditious, con- 
 taining many indecent and insolent Expressions, highly reflecting on the 
 Honour, Justice and Authority of, and an High Insult and Indignity 
 to this House; and are designed and calculated to inflame the Minds of 
 the good People of this Colony, against their Representatives in General 
 Assembly. 
 
 " Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, 
 
 " That the Author or Authors of the said Letters is, or are, guilty 
 of an High Misdemeanor and a most daring Insult on the Honour, 
 Justice, and Authority of this House." 
 
62 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 They then resolv^ed to present an Address to the Governor calling 
 on him to offer a reward of £50 for the discovery of the Author or 
 Authors, and say that the House will provide means to meet the expense. 
 
 Writing under date of Sept. 23, 1765 to Secretary Conway in Eng- 
 land, Lieutenant Governor Colden remarks on this general subject: ^^ 
 
 " Soon after it was known that Stamp Duties were by Act of Par- 
 liament to be paid in the Colonies, virulent papers were published in the 
 Weekly Newspapers, filled with every falsehood that malice could invent 
 ^' to serve their purpose of exciting the people to disobedience of the Laws 
 and to Sedition. At first they only denied the authority of Parliament 
 to lay internal taxes in the Colonies but at last they have denyed the Legis- 
 lative Authority of the Parliament in the Colonies, and these papers 
 continue to be published. 
 
 I agreed with the Gentlemen of the Council that considering the 
 
 /present temper of the people this is not a proper time to prosecute the 
 
 I printers and Publishers of the Seditious Papers. The Attorney General 
 
 likewise told me that he does not think himself safe to commence any 
 
 such Prosecution." 
 
 And in another letter to Secretary Conway under date of Oct. 12, 
 1765,''^ he again refers to the matter. 
 
 " Since the last which I had the honour to write to you of the 23d of 
 September, this town has remained quiet the inflammatory Papers con- 
 tinue to be published, exciting the People to oppose the execution of the 
 Act of Parliament for laying a Stamp Duty in the Colonies. The most 
 remarkable of these Papers is enclosed. This was distributed along the 
 Post Roads by the Post Riders. I examined the Post Master in this 
 place to know how this came to be done. He assured me that it was 
 . without his knowledge; that he had examined the Post Riders and found 
 ^ that one or more Bundles of them were delivered at Woodbridge, New 
 Jersey, to the Post Rider, by James Parker Secrettary to the General 
 Post Ofl^ce in N. America. Parker was formerly a printer in this place 
 and has now a printing Press and continues to print occasionally. It is 
 believed that this Paper was printed by him. The Gentlemen of the 
 Council think it prudent at this time to delay making more particular 
 inquiry least it should be the occasion of raising the Mob which it is 
 thought proper by all means to avoid." 
 
 31 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., VH, 759. 
 
 32 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., VII, 767. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 63 
 
 In the fall of 1767 a pamphlet, of which a few copies were reprinted 
 from a London Edition, appeared in New York and created considerable 
 excitement. It was entitled " The Conduct of Cadwallader Colden, 
 Esq. Lieutenant-Governor of New York, relating to the judges' commis- 
 sions: — Appeals to the King; and Stamp Duty." It had been presented 
 by the grand jury in October as a libellous reflection on the Council, the 
 Assembly and the Courts of Justice in the province of New York, and, as 
 its sub-title would indicate, was a defense of Colden's conduct when act- 
 ing as Governor. In the course of the argument reference was made to 
 the action of the two branches of the Assembly in these matters, and both 
 bodies took umbrage and appointed a joint committee to investigate, and 
 if possible discover, the author and the person responsible for the repub- 
 lication in New York.^^ 
 
 The committee carried on its work with vigor, summoning among 
 others the printers of the province and also Colden's son and son-in-law,^^ 
 and the matter finally ended in a report by the committee to the General 
 Assembly and the adoption of the following resolutions.^-^ 
 
 " Resolved, . . . That the said pamphlet highly reflects upon the 
 honor, justice and dignity of his Majesty's Council, the General Assem- 
 bly, and the Judges of the Supreme Court; and contains the most 
 malignant aspersions, upon the inhabitants of this colony in general. 
 
 " Resolved, That the said pamphlet tends to destroy the confidence 
 of the people, in two of the branches of the legislature, and the oflficers 
 concerned in the due administration of justice; to render the government 
 odious and contemptible, to abate that due respect to authority, so neces- 
 sary to peace and good order, to excite disadvantageous suspicions and 
 jealousies in the minds of the people of Great Britain, against his 
 Majesty's subjects in this colony, and to expose the colony in general, to 
 the resentments of the crown and both houses of Parliament. 
 
 " Resolved, That as the House has not been able to discover the 
 author of the said pamphlet, a dissolution of the general assembly is 
 speedily expected; his Excellency the Governor be humbly requested, in 
 case the author should hereafter be discovered, to order a prosecution 
 to be issued against him, that such punishment may be inflicted on so 
 great an offender as the law directs." 
 
 33 Min. of Legislative Council, and of General Assembly, Dec. 23 and 30, 1767. 
 
 34 Letter of Colden to Earl of Shelburne, Jan. 21, 1768. Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., 
 
 vni, p. 6. 
 
 35 Minutes, General Assembly, Feb. 6, 1768. 
 
64 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 This Is an instance where neither branch of the Assembly can force 
 an avowal of authorship from those who are suspected; a little later we 
 shall find in the Parker-McDougall case that the Governor and Council 
 did not consider it beneath their dignity to resort to very questionable 
 actions when they were trying to find the person responsible for a 
 pamphlet which displeased them. 
 
 It is not necessary to enter here on the details of the circumstances 
 which finally led to the repeal of the Stamp Act and the passage of the 
 Mutiny Act.^*^ The more extreme party had viewed with great dis- 
 quietude the passage of the latter act, and the way in which the Assembly 
 had yielded In the matter of meeting Its provisions. When the Gover- 
 nor, Sir Henry Moore, died on Sept. nth, 1769 and Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor Golden once more took up the reins of government, the feeling was 
 intensified, and on Dec. i6th, two printed papers appeared, the first 
 signed " A Son of Liberty," and the second " Legion " in which " the 
 betrayed Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New York " were invited 
 to meet on the following Monday at the House of De La Montayne In 
 the Fields near the City, and there take steps to set forth their rights and 
 vindicate the privileges which the Assembly seemed unable to successfully 
 assert. 
 
 At this meeting which was largely attended a speech was made by 
 John Lamb a prosperous merchant of the city. 
 
 Meanwhile the Assembly had had its attention called to the papers 
 and had declared the first to be " false, seditious and infamous," and 
 had branded the second as " an infamous libel," and had requested the 
 Lieutenant-Governor to issue his proclamation, offering a reward of £100 
 for the discovery of the author.^" After the meeting in the Fields the 
 Assembly ordered Lamb to appear before it, and examined him as to 
 " his conduct about the two libels " but as it did not appear that his 
 actions at the Fields had been In consequence of the two libels he was 
 allowed to depart.''** But the Assembly had not given up all hope of 
 finding and prosecuting the author of the two pamphlets. One of 
 Parker's journeymen for the sake of the reward, gave Information against 
 him, and on Feb. 7th Parker was arrested and examined by the Governor 
 and Council. While the latter was detained in a room off the Council 
 
 30 Vide Isaac Q. Leake, " Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, Chapters 
 II and III. 
 
 3" Minutes, General Assembly, Dec. i8th and 19th, 1769. 
 38 Minutes, General Assembly, Dec. 31, 1769. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 65 
 
 Chamber, his apprentices were arrested, and brought before the Council, 
 and although for a long time they stoutly refused to admit any knowl- 
 edge of the papers, one of them by gross intimidation was finally brought 
 to admit that the papers had been printed in his master's office. 
 
 Parker was then brought back before the Council, told that his 
 apprentice had admitted that it had been printed by him, and threatened, 
 in case he refused to name the author, with the loss of his position as 
 Secretary of the Post Office. Finally Parker, being promised indemnity, 
 gave information which resulted in the arrest on a bench warrant of 
 Alexander McDougall, who was taken before the Chief Justice, and on 
 refusal to admit the fact of authorship, committed to prison. 
 
 Some seven years before this, in 1763, John Wilkes, member of 
 Parliament, and editor of the " North Britain " had been arrested on a 
 general warrant for having attacked in No. 45 of his journal the Bute 
 administration and abused the King, charging the latter with falsehood. 
 Wilkes was discharged on the ground of parliamentary privilege, and the 
 question being carried before the Chief Justice, Lord Camden, the latter 
 declared general warrants to be illegal. Wilkes was expelled by a sub- 
 servient Parliament, but was regarded by great numbers in the nation as 
 a martyr to the cause of liberty and freedom of discussion. 
 
 Now it happened that the vote of the Assembly declaring the hand 
 bills libellous had been printed on the forty-fifth page of the journal. 
 For either this reason, or more probably because of No. 45 of the " North 
 Britain" (which number was often used as a party-cry in England), 
 " Forty-five " became the watchword of the Sons of Liberty, at this time 
 a numerous body. McDougall was overrun with visitors at the jail 
 and was forced to issue in the " New York Weekly Journal " for Feb. 
 15th, a card to his friends in which he appointed the hours from three to 
 six in the afternoon to receive them. 
 
 In the same number of the Journal appears an account of one of 
 these receptions : 
 
 " Yesterday, the forty-fifth day of the year, forty-five gentlemen, real 
 enemies to internal taxation, by, or in obedience to external authority, 
 and cordial friends to Capt. McDougal, and the glorious cause of 
 American liberty, went in decent procession to the New Gaol; and dined 
 with him on forty-five pounds of beef, cut from a bullock of forty-five 
 months old, and with a number of other friends who joined them in the 
 
66 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 afternoon, drank a variety of toasts, expressive not only of the most 
 undissembled loyalty, but of the warmest attachment to Liberty, its 
 renowned advocates in Great Britain and America, and the freedom of 
 the press. Before the evening the whole company, who conducted them- 
 selves with great decency, separated in the most cordial manner, but not 
 without the firmest resolution to continue united in the glorious cause." 
 In April he was indicted by the Grand Jury for libel, and being brought 
 to the bar pleaded not guilty and was admitted to bail. 
 
 While matters were in this condition the Assembly again took the 
 matter up. On Dec. 13, 1770, the Speaker was directed to order Mc- 
 Dougall to attend at the Bar of the House to answer a complaint made 
 against him by Mr. De Noyellis for being the supposed author or pub- 
 lisher of the paper signed " A Son of Liberty." ^^ On his attending, 
 McDougall was asked whether he was or was not the author of the 
 paper. He replied " That as the grand jury and house of Assembly had 
 declared the paper in question to be a libel, he could not answer the ques- 
 tion. Secondly, that as he was under prosecution in the Supreme Court, 
 he conceived it would be an infraction of the laws of Justice to punish a 
 British subject twice for one offense, for that no line could be run, that he 
 might be punished without end; but he would not be understood to deny 
 the authority of the house to punish for a breach of privilege, when no 
 cognizance is taken of it in another Court." 
 
 The Assembly decided that this was a contempt of the authority of 
 the house, and, since he refused to ask pardon of the house, he was 
 ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and placed in the 
 county jail. 
 
 A writ of Habeas Corpus was sued out before the Court of Justice, 
 whereupon the sheriff notified the house and asked what he should do. 
 A committee was appointed on Jan. 22d, 177 i, "to search the journals of 
 the house of Commons, for precedents in cases where writs of habeas 
 corpus have been issued, to bring persons committed by the Commons 
 before other Courts." The committee reported on Feb. 16, that several 
 precedents had been found, which precedents were ordered printed in the 
 Journal of the House. It was also determined that the sheriff should be 
 indemnified for his action in not obeying the order of the Court. 
 
 The Assembly was prorogued on March 4, 177 i, and did not come 
 
 39 Minutes, General Assembly of that date. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 6/ 
 
 together till Jan. 7, 1772, and we hear no more of the McDougall affair. 
 About this time Parker died and as he was the principal witness in the 
 case it was probably considered useless to bring up the indictment before 
 the Court. 
 
 From this time on, pamphlets, opposing the Crown and its policy of 
 repression, continued to appear in ever increasing number, but the gov- 
 ernment made no serious sign of opposition, and seemed to have given 
 up in despair the attempt to control a press which the majority of the 
 people warmly supported. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE PRESS IN THE SOUTHERN COLONIES 
 
 JN the Southern colonies we find, as we should expect, an absence of 
 any very Important cases bearing on the subject under investigation. 
 The ideas of Sir Wm. Berkeley, (for thirty-eight years Gover- 
 nor of Virginia), in regard to the dissemination of information, may be 
 gathered from a reply made by him to some enquiries of the Lords Com- 
 missioners of Foreign Plantations. 
 
 The question being " What course is taken about the instructing the 
 people, within your government in the Christian religion; and what pro- 
 vision is there made for the paying of your minister?" his answer is: 
 "The same course that is taken in England out of towns: every man 
 according to his ability instructing his children. We have forty-eight 
 parishes, and our ministers are well paid, and by my consent should be 
 better if they would pray oftener and preach less. But of all other com- 
 modities, so of this, the worst is sent us, and we had few that we could 
 boast of, since the persecution in Cromwell's tiranny drove divers worthy 
 men hither. But, I thank God, we have not free schools nor printing; 
 and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has 
 brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world; and printing 
 has divulged them and libels against the government. God keep us from 
 both." ' 
 
 At the beginning of the last quarter of the seventeenth century Vir- 
 ginia suffered from internal disorders (as Bacon's Rebellion), due to 
 political disturbances having their origin in the English Civil War. Lord 
 Culpepper, the Governor, was inclined to stretch the royal prerogative to 
 its furthest limit and met the murmurings of the Assembly with a cold 
 and gloomy dignity. - 
 
 The Assembly insisting on its rights as given in the charters, Lord 
 Culpepper dissolved the body and endeavored to stamp out all remem- 
 
 1 Original in a book in the Office of the General Court, labelled " Inquisitions &c., 
 1665-1676 " p. 239, printed in Hening's Statutes at Large, II, 517. 
 
 2 Burke, Hist. Virginia, II, 237. 
 
 68 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 69 
 
 brance of past freedom. In the Bland MS. p. 498,'' we find the follow- 
 ing entry: " Feb. 21, 1682, John Buckner called before the Lord Cul- 
 pepper and his Council for printing the laws of 1680, without his Excel- 
 lency's license, and he and the printer ordered to enter into bond in £100 
 not to print anything thereafter, until his majesty's pleasure should be 
 known." Thus, the press was strangled at its birth, since we have no 
 record or copy of any other work, and that the government continued to 
 watch carefully lest it should appear again is proven by the Instructions 
 of Lord Effingham, the next Governor, in which he is ordered " to allow 
 no person to use a printing press on any occasion whatsoever." ^ 
 
 In the period between 1733, when Wm. Parks established his press 
 at Williamsburg, and 1765 when Wm. Rind began to issue a paper at 
 Williamsburg, there was but the single press in Virginia, and being the 
 organ of the government it may be easily imagined that it had no great 
 temptation to struggle for the liberty of the press. 
 
 With the exception of libel suits against Wm. Parks about the year 
 1740 (by which the House of Burgesses sought to punish him for pub- 
 lishing an article reflecting on one of the members), and the presentment 
 in 1766 of Rind, and of Purdie and Dixon, the publishers of the two Vir- 
 ginia Gazettes (for referring in a way considered improper, to the bail- 
 ment of Colonel Chiswell), in both of which instances the prosecution 
 failed utterly in its attempt, — there is nothing on the subject which claims 
 our attention. 
 
 In South Carolina the press was encouraged, liberal inducements 
 being held out to any printer who would settle in the colony. As a result 
 of this policy we find the printing press In operation from the year 1730, 
 a newspaper being published In 173 1. In the early period of the history 
 of the press In the colony the only cause of serious trouble that we find 
 was one Involving Peter Timothy, of the Gazette, who had published a 
 letter by one Hugh Bryan In which occurred the statement that " the 
 clergy of South Carolina broke their Canons dally." With Timothy 
 were also arrested Bryan and George Whitefield, the Evangelist, who 
 had corrected the manuscript. All three were admitted to ball, and the 
 matter was dropped. 
 
 In 1773 one of the most Important cases that ever occurred in the 
 
 3 Quoted by Hening, Statutes at Large, II, 518. 
 
 4 Chalmer's Annals, Vol. I, p. 345. 
 
 y" 
 
K 
 
 70 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 colonies came about through the publication In the South Carolina 
 Gazette, then owned by Timothy and a partner whom he had lately taken, 
 named Thomas Powell, but managed entirely by the latter, of a portion 
 f the proceedings of the Council on the previous day. Being summoned 
 to attend the body, he admitted that he was the publisher of the Gazette, 
 and that he had printed the proceedings, which on being asked he said 
 had been brought to him by the Hon. Wm. Henry Drayton, a member of 
 the Council. The Council then adjudged him " guilty of a high breach 
 of the privileges, and a contempt of the house." 
 
 Powell refused to ask pardon of the Council which then, 
 
 " Resolved, That Thomas Powell, who hath this day been adjudged 
 
 by this house, to have been guilty of a high breach of privilege, and a 
 
 contempt of this house, be for his said offense committed to the Common 
 
 "^Gaol of Charleston; and that his Honor, the President of this house, do 
 
 Issue his warrant accordingly." 
 
 Mr. Drayton, who was present, and had acknowledged his share in 
 i^the affair, protested strongly, but without avail, and Powell was placed in 
 prison. Two days later, on Sept. 2d, the Hon. Rawlins Lowndes, and 
 Mr. George Gabriel Powell, the former being Speaker of the Assembly, 
 and the latter one of the members of the body, and both being justices of 
 the peace, had Powell brought before them on a writ of Habeas Corpus 
 and discharged him. The Council then took action In these resolutions: 
 
 " Resolved, That the power of commitment Is so necessarily incident 
 to each house of Assembly, that without it neither their authority nor 
 dignity can in any degree whatsoever be maintained or supported. 
 
 " Resolved, That Rawlins Lowndes, Esqr., Speaker of the Com- 
 mons House of Assembly, and George Gabriel Powell, Esqr. member 
 of the said house, being two justices of the peace, iiniis quorum, lately 
 assistant judges and justices of his majesty's court of Common Pleas, 
 have, by virtue of habeas corpus by them Issued, caused the body of T. 
 Powell to be brought before them, on the second of this instant Septem- 
 ber, and the said justices, disregarding the commitment of this house, did 
 presumptuously discharge T. Powell out of the custody of the sheriff 
 under the commitment of this house. 
 
 " Resolved, That the said justices have been guilty of the most 
 atrocious contempt of this house." 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 7^ 
 
 The resolution which follows calls upon the Assembly to disavow 
 the action of these men and give them up to receive proper punishment. 
 This the Assembly refused to do, and then both houses carried the matter 
 on petition to the Crown, and it had not been settled when the breaking 
 out of the Revolutionary War put an end to the affair. 
 
 In this case the attempt of the upper house to destroy the liberty of 
 the press, was opposed by the desire of the lower house to uphold it, and 
 the fact that this occurred on the eve of the Revolution is significant, 
 teaching us that even to the last the principle that the press must be free 
 had not been established in the American colonies. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 WE have had brought before us all the instances of any Import- 
 ance, throughout the American colonies of efforts on the part 
 of the government to control the liberty of the press. Let us 
 now attempt to deduce from them the general principles which governed 
 the matter. 
 
 In the first place it is clear that, as the several colonies differed the 
 one from another in their relations with and dependence upon the home 
 government and their Governor, who represented that government, so 
 too the press was in some colonies far more free from control than in 
 others. In Massachusetts, where interference from outside was always 
 resisted, control by the Governor was seldom attempted. Before the 
 administration of Governor Andros the Crown made no attempt to Inter- 
 fere; Andros himself appointed Edward Randolph (vide p. 9) as 
 licenser, and Bartholomew Green, the Boston publisher testifies (vide p. 
 10) to the fact that in his time (the end of the seventeenth century), 
 Lieutenant-Governor Stoughton took a keen interest in the productions 
 of the press, and refused to allow any publications without a previous ap- 
 plication to him, with a copy of the matter to be published. After this 
 period the control by the Crown again was lost in that as also In political 
 matters. 
 
 In Pennsylvania we have an Instance of a Governor representing an 
 individual proprietor. Here the struggle between the people and Penn's 
 representative in political matters was carried over Into the field occupied 
 by the press, and so we find in the early period of the existence of the 
 press a dual authority exercised, the Crown and the Quarterly Meeting, 
 both claiming the right of censorship (vide p. 23). In the first half of 
 the eighteenth century the power of the Quakers passed away as far as 
 our subject Is concerned, but the control exercised by the Crown continued, 
 although more and more questioned, until the breaking out of the Revolu- 
 tionary struggle. 
 
 In New York the Governor himself was responsible for the Intro- 
 
 72 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 73 
 
 ductlon of the press and for forty years (1692-1734), it took no active 
 part in political agitations, maintaining a cautious neutrality under Brad- 
 ford. In this colony it was rather a question of the right to freedom of 
 speech, a question raised in the prosecution of Col. Nicholas Bayard. 
 From the period of the Zenger trial newspapers continued to increase and 
 the twenty-five years before 1775 witnessed a continuous production of 
 pamphlets in which the Crown and its representative were attacked, the 
 efforts to punish by the government being in almost every case entirely 
 futile. The press divides itself into two groups, the supporters and 
 opponents of the Governor, and the party newspaper becomes a reality. 
 
 In the Southern colonies the press never attained any liberty, the 
 government being ever on the watch to repress the smallest attempt at 
 freedom of discussion and criticism. 
 
 In the second place we find that the attitude assumed by the inhabit- 
 ants of the colonies, as expressed by the actions of their representatives, 
 varied in the different colonies. We do find this general similarity, that 
 in all there was a very jealous upholding of the rights of the legislative 
 body as against criticism. That can be easily established by a perusal 
 of the Minutes of any of the Assemblies. But in Massachusetts a dis- 
 tinction seems to have been early established between a criticism of the 
 proceedings of the General Court as such, and a criticism of the policy of 
 the government. In Pennsylvania this view was only in the latter period 
 arrived at; in New York the General Assembly was constantly taking 
 offense at writings appearing in the newspapers or distributed in the 
 form of pamphlets; while in Virginia the question never arose because 
 there was no criticism. 
 
 Everywhere we find that there was, as time goes on, a general 
 advance towards freedom of discussion. But this is best seen in non- 
 political matters. With the failure by Parliament in 1695 to renew the 
 Licensing Act all publication became at least theoretically free except in 
 so far as it was restrained by the law of libel. To just what extent this 
 law could be stretched was always a matter of dispute. The maxim " the 
 greater the truth, the greater the libel " must certainly have exercised an 
 Influence to deter the publications of the time from the discussion of 
 private affairs. In fact In many Instances the news contained in an issue 
 of a newspaper was practically nothing, the few columns being occupied 
 with a very bald statement of Indian affairs, or the relations with France 
 or perhaps a short account of something which had taken place In Eng- 
 
74 LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 land or on the Continent. The needs of the community, as better roads 
 or the impounding of wandering cattle, were lightly touched on, but 
 there was but slight evidence of any conception of the idea that the press 
 could lead and direct public opinion as to municipal affairs. 
 
 In political matters not directly affecting the Crown there was also 
 a slight advance towards freedom of discussion, which, as the time of the 
 Revolution approached, became very much extended. But here again 
 no general rule can be established for the more radical colonies, as 
 Massachusetts, would naturally be far in advance of the more conserva- 
 tive, while between would stand New York. 
 
 Of one thing we may be confident. In no colony would the Gover- 
 nor, as representing the Crown, permit a criticism of its actions to pass 
 without censure, and, if possible, punishment. When the Evening Post 
 of Boston (vide p. 14) published in 1741 the paragraph in regard to the 
 expected overthrow of the Walpole Ministry, the Attorney-General was 
 at once ordered to file an Information against the printer, Thomas Fleet, 
 and although no further proceedings were ever taken, the omission was 
 due rather to want of confidence in the Massachusetts jury than to any 
 leniency on the part of the Governor. In the case of McDougall (vide 
 p. 65), we find the writer of a pamphlet obnoxious to the Crown kept in 
 prison even against a writ of Habeas Corpus, and only released when the 
 death of the principal witness in the case made his conviction impossible. 
 
 The liberty of the press was still further curtailed by the influence 
 exerted by certain classes in the community. There was always a strong 
 feeling among those who had grants of land (either directly from the 
 Crown or by the Crown as confirmatory of purchases already made from 
 the Indians) , against any discussion of their rights over those who were 
 their tenants. This influence would of course be of importance only in 
 the colonies where grants were numerous, as in the colony of New York. 
 But another class influence, that of the Clergy, was far stronger at all 
 times and universal in its extent. In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania it 
 is hardly possible to overestimate the importance of this influence, and in 
 none of the colonies can it be neglected if we desire to properly appreciate 
 the difficulties that faced the printer in his struggle for the right of free 
 discussion. The troubles of Wm. Bradford, the elder in Pennsylvania 
 (vide p. 26), and of James Franklin in Massachusetts (vide p. 11), give 
 us a pretty clear idea of the troubles that would beset the man who did 
 not keep himself out of controversy. Just as the New England Election 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 75 
 
 Sermons give us perhaps the best means of understanding the Influence 
 of the Clergy in the field of politics, so these quarrels between printer and 
 Quarterly Meeting or Presbytery show us the feeling toward freedom of 
 discussion. 
 
 It is also important to remember that the press appealed to a very 
 much smaller percentage of the population in colonial times than it does 
 to-day, " In Boston with a population of 8000, Campbell succeeded in 
 selling but 300 copies of his News Letter when it was the only newspaper 
 printed in America." ^ Later the circulation of all the papers increased, 
 but it was still but a small proportion of the colonists who received first 
 hand the opinions of the editor. And this body of subscribers was for 
 the most part of the professional class or the wealthier part of those in 
 trade, persons naturally of a conservative temper and apt to look with 
 disfavor on any strong attack on or disregard of legalized and established 
 authority. 
 
 In New York, owing to the peculiar way in which the press was 
 Introduced, it for the first forty years of its existence did nothing to put 
 itself In antagonism to the government; in Massachusetts it at first was 
 given a subvention by the General Court; in South Carolina a compara- 
 tively large sum was offered to any ncinter who would brave the dangers 
 of the climate and establish a press. [_With these exceptions Its early days 
 were passed under governments which viewed with dislike or suspicion 
 any attempts on the part of the printers to take an intelligent part In the 
 questions that were interesting the people. For this reason the press In 
 all the colonies early assumed a position of antagonism to the constituted 
 authority and In return the government took every opportunity to hurt 
 It by means of prosecutions in the courts or inquisitorial proceedings 
 before the Governar and his Council. It Is Interesting to note however 
 that these proceedings lost almost all their terrors as the period of the 
 Revolution approached, for the press received more and more the support 
 of the people, who had learned to appreciate the wide circulation which 
 the newspaper gave to the new doctrines; thus we constantly find the 
 grand juries refusing to find true bills against the printers, in this way 
 reducing the Governor to the use of Informations which were looked on 
 with suspicion by the people and seldom resulted in a verdict of Guilty. 
 
 But the greatest Influence of the press was exerted through the flood 
 of hand-bills and pamphlets which ever Increased In volume as the period 
 
 1 Hudson, History of Journalism, p. 57. 
 
yd LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 of the Revolution drew near. Printed in large numbers and circulating 
 everywhere, we find Governors reporting to the home government that it 
 was impossible to stop them, and that they were doing incalculable harm. 
 
 If now we attempt in a very brief way to review the whole matter 
 of the struggle for the liberty of the press we shall find: 
 
 First: That the system in vogue in America, as in England, up to 
 the close of the seventeenth century, was a system of administrative con- 
 trol by the Crown through appointed officers called Censors, to whom 
 all writings had to be submitted before publication and who either gave or 
 refused permission to print. That this Censorship was shared by Church 
 and State in some instances only complicated the situation. 
 
 Second: With the failure to pass the Licensing Bill in 1695 the press 
 became in all parts of the English dominion freed from this censorship ; 
 but a system of judicial control took its place, for all publications were 
 now subject to the law of libel, and an attack on the dominant party was 
 held by the courts to be a libel, and a censure of the Governor to be a per- 
 sonal reflection on the King. In Franklin's case in England in 1731,^ 
 it was laid down by Lord Raymond that the court alone was to judge of 
 the criminality of a libel, to the jury was given only the right to decide as 
 to the fact of publication. 
 
 In England that doctrine continued in force until the passage of 
 Mr. Fox's Libel Bill in 1792. But fifty-eight years earlier the Zenger 
 case (in 1734) had established in principle the freedom of the press in 
 the colonies, by settling the right of juries to find a general verdict in libel 
 cases. We have said " In principle " for this right, which the colonists 
 soon grew to consider as a part of their common law , was yet in practice 
 more or less nullified in the different colonies according as the Governor 
 was able to impose his will on the courts or was opposed by an intelligent 
 public opinion. 
 
 In other words, liberty of the press, did not and could not exist in 
 the colonial period, but the people accepted the principle and when they 
 obtained thp opportunity incorporated it in Bills of Rights and State Con- 
 stitutions. -^ The Continental Congress in issuing, on Oct. 21st, 1774, an 
 " Address to the people of Canada " proceeded to detail and enlarge upon 
 the rights to which English subjects were entitled, and among them placed 
 the freedom of the press.-' 
 
 2 Howell's State Trials XVH, 1243. 
 
 3 Wm. Duaiie, " Canada and the Continental Congress," p. 20. 
 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS TJ 
 
 We see the same point made by State after State. 
 
 Maryland, 1776 : " That the liberty of the press ought to be inviol- 
 ably preserved." 
 
 Virginia, 1776 : " That the freedom of the press is one of the great 
 bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic 
 governments." 
 
 Pennsylvania, 1776: " That the people have a right to freedom of 
 speech, and of writing, and of publishing their sentiments; therefore the 
 freedom of the press ought not to be restrained." 
 
 Georgia, 1777 : " Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain 
 inviolable forever." 
 
 Vermont, 1777: "That the public have the right to freedom of 
 speech and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore the free- 
 dom of the press ought not to be restrained." 
 
 South Carolina, 1778 : " That the liberty of the press be inviolably 
 preserved." 
 
 Massachusetts, 1780: "The liberty of the press is essential to the 
 security of freedom in a state; and ought not, therefore, to be restrained 
 in this commonwealth." 
 
 New Hampshire, 1784: " The liberty of the press Is essential to the • 
 security of freedom in a state; and it ought, therefore, to be inviolably 
 preserved." 
 
 Pinckney's Plan of 1787: "The Legislature of the United States 
 shall pass no law touching or abridging the liberty of the press." 
 
 Delaware, 1792: "The press shall be free to every citizen who 
 undertakes to examine the official conduct of men acting in a public 
 capacity, and any citizen may print on any subject, being responsible for 
 the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications Investigating 
 the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published Is proper for 
 public Information, the truth thereof may be given In evidence; and In 
 all indictments for libels, the jury may determine the facts and the law, 
 as In other cases." 
 
 After the Federal Convention came together In 1787 It was proposed 
 to Insert in the Constitution, " the liberty of the press shall be Inviolably 
 
8o LIBERTY OF THE PRESS 
 
 Ford, Paul Leicester — Journal of Hugh Gaine. New York, 1901. 
 
 Fowle, Daniel — Total Eclipse of Liberty. Boston, 1755. 
 
 Franklin, Benjamin — Autobiography. New York, 1849. 
 
 Fraser, Hugh — Privileges of the Press in relation to Libel; Law 
 Quarterly Review, 7, 158. 
 
 Gentz, F. von — Reflections on the Liberty of the Press in Great Britain. 
 London, 1820 (trans.) 
 
 Gordon, Wm. D. D. — The History of the Rise, Progress and Establish- 
 ment of the Independence of the United States of America ; 4 vols. 
 London, 1788. 
 
 Grant, James — History of the Newspaper Press. London, 1840. 
 
 Hall, Robert — An Apology for the Freedom of the Press and for Gen- 
 eral Liberty. London, 1793. 
 
 Harrison, W. L. S. — Proceedings at the Printers Banquet held at the 
 N. Y. Typographical Society, on the Occasion of Franklin's Birth- 
 day, 1850. New York, 1850. 
 
 Hening, Wm. Waller — Statutes at Large of Virginia; 16 vols. New 
 York, 1823. 
 
 Howell, T. B. — State Trials; 30 vols. London, v.d. 
 
 Hildeburn, Charles — Sketches of Printers and Printing in Colonial New 
 York. New York, 1895. 
 
 Hudson, Frederick — A History of Journalism. New York, 1873. 
 
 Hunt, F. Knight — The Fourth Estate; Contributions Towards a His- 
 tory of Newspapers and of the Liberty of the Press; 2 vols. Lon- 
 don, 1850. 
 
 Hutchinson, Thomas — History of Massachusetts; 2 vols. Salem, 1795. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas — Notes on the State of Virginia. London, 1787. 
 
 Jones, Horatio Gates — Andrew Bradford, Founder of the Newspaper 
 Press in the Middle States of America; An Address delivered at the 
 Annual Meeting of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Phil- 
 adelphia, 1869. 
 
 Lechford, Thomas — Note-Book. Am. Antiquarian Society; Vol. VII, 
 1885. 
 
 Leake, Isaac Q. — Memoirs of the Life and Times of General John 
 Lamb. Albany, 1850. 
 
 Lincoln, Wm. — History of Worcester, Mass. Worcester, 1862. 
 
 Massachusetts — MS. Records of the Colony. 
 
 McAdam, David — History of the Bench and Bar of New York; 2 vols. 
 New York, 1897. 
 
LIBEETY OF THE PEESS 81 
 
 McMaster, John Bach— A Free Press in the Middle Colonies. Prince- 
 ton Ee view; Vol. I. (N. S.) 
 
 Munsell, Joel — Annals of Albany ; 10 vols. Albany, v. d. 
 
 New York — The Colonial Laws of; 5 vols. Albany, 1894. 
 
 New York — Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the 
 Colony of. 1691-1765 ; 2 vols. New York, 1765. 
 
 New York — Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the 
 Colony of. 1766-1776. Albany, 1820 (reprint.) 
 
 New York — Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 
 Albany. New York, 1861. 
 
 North, S. N. B. — Constitutional Development of the Colony of New 
 York. Mag. Am. Hist. III., 161. 
 
 O'Callaghan — Documents relative to the Colonial History of the 
 State of New York ; 11 vols. Albany, v. d. 
 
 Odgers— W. Blake— The Law of Libel. Philadelphia, 1887. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Minutes of the Provincial Council of; 3 vols. Phila- 
 delphia, 1852. 
 
 Proud, Eobert — History of Pennsylvania ; 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1798. 
 
 Eoden, E. F.— The Cambridge Press, (1630-1692). New York, 1905. 
 
 Eoss, Peter — A History of Long Island. New York, 1903. 
 
 Eutherford, Livingston — John Peter Zenger. His Press, His Trial, 
 and a Biography of his Imprints and those issued by his "Wife 
 and Son. Also a reprint of the Trial. New York, 1904. 
 
 Satterlee, Herbert L.— Political History of the Province of New York. 
 New York, 1885. 
 
 Taylor, Hannis— The Freedom of the Press. Argument ex parte 
 John L. Eapier, before Supreme Court of U. S., n. p., n. d. 
 
 Taylor, Henry Osborn— Development of Constitutional Government 
 in the American Colonies. Mag. Am. Hist. II., 705. 
 
 Thomas, Benjamin Franklin, Memoir of Isaiah Thomas. Boston, 
 1874. 
 
 Thomas, Isaiah— History of Printing; 2 vols. Albany, 1874. 
 
 The Tryal of John Peter Zenger. London, 1738. 
 
 Wallace, John William— Address on Wm. Bradford. Albany, 1863. 
 
 Wallace, John William— Col. Wm. Bradford. Philadelphia, 1884. 
 
82 
 
 APPENDIX 1 
 GENEOLOGY OF THE BRADFORD FAMILY 
 
 WILLIAM BRADFORD— ELIZABETH SOWLE 
 
 1660-1752 
 1725, The New York Gazette 
 
 d. of Andrew Sowle 
 
 printer, of London. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 ANDREW 
 
 1686-1742 
 
 1792 The American Weekly 
 
 Mercury of Philadelphia 
 
 WILLIAM 
 
 a sailor 
 
 WILLIAM— Rachel TRACE Y-Jo8hua Maddox Wallace 
 
 1719-1791 
 
 1742 The Pennsylvania 
 
 Journal 
 
 d.ofThos. Budd 
 of the Keithian party 
 in Philadelphia 
 
 THOMAS 
 
 Partner with 
 
 his father 
 
 W^ILLIAM 
 
 Attorney General 
 
 of U. S. 
 
 I 
 SCHUYLER 
 
 died in East 
 
 Indies 
 
83 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 QUOTATION FROM ''THE FORUM." 
 
 DAVID PAUL BROWN. 
 
 Vol. I., p. 271. 
 
 The "Liberty. of the Press" in America, is a matter whoso 
 earlier history, we think, has not been well apprehended, even among 
 ourselves, in modern times. Knowing, as we do, that our country was, 
 as a general thing, colonized hj those who left England in discontent 
 with its laws against a general liberty on the subjects of religion and 
 politics,, we have been led to suppose that THE PRESS was as free 
 in the early state of the colonies as it has been in our own days. This, 
 we take.it, is a mistake; it is, certainly, so far as concerns Pennsyl- 
 vania. -^There was, in truth, no liberty of the press at all, worth 
 speaking of, in this State, prior to the year 1731 ; and it seems to have 
 been asserted, and finally established by the printers themselves, 
 against the sharp and unscrupulous action of the crown officers, who 
 exercised in this colony, at least, a power far beyond any ever exer- 
 cised contemporaneously in England; a power, indeed, such as we find 
 existing only in tyrannies as absolute and irresponsible as those of 
 Naples, St. Petersburg or Vienna. The history of this subject is one 
 of growing interest ; it deserves a special study and illustration ; and 
 such, sooner or later, it will no doubt receive." 
 
86 
 
 VITA. 
 
 The aiitlior of this dissertation, Livingston Eowe Schuvler, was 
 born July 22, 1868, in the City of New York. He received his early 
 education in private and public schools in the city, and in 1885 enter- 
 ed the Freshman class of the College of the City of New York. Dur- 
 ing the last two years of his undergraduate course he gave speccial 
 attention to American and English History. He was graduated in 
 1889 with the degree of Bachelor of Arts._ 
 
 The same year the writer was appointed a Tutor in the Depart- 
 ment of IMathematics of the College of the City of New York, which 
 position he held for one year. The year 1890-1891 he spent as Mas- 
 ter of the Quarta Form in Trinity School, New York, from which he 
 resigned to enter the General Theological Seminary, New York City. 
 There he continued to give special attention to History. In 1893 he 
 received the degree of Master of Arts from the College of the City of 
 New York for graduate work in History and the TDresentation of a 
 dissertation. In 1894, on being graduated from the General Theo- 
 logical Seminary, he was recommended by the Faculty to the 
 Trustees for the degree of Baclielor of Sacred Theolog3% which was 
 conferred in May, 1895. 
 
 In June, 1894, Mr. Schuyler was appointed to a Travelling 
 Scholarship in Ecclesiastical History by the Church University 
 Board of Regents, his major subject being History, and his minors. 
 Philosophy and Sociology, and the term three years. The first year 
 he spent in studv in Historv at the General Theological Seminary 
 under the Eev. Prof. Ritchie. The year 1895-1896 he spent at the 
 University of Oxford, where he took courses in History under Profs. 
 Bright, Powell and Fletcher, and in Philosophy under Profs. Caird 
 and Case. He also did research work in the Bodleian Library. 
 The next two years he s]:>ent in Paris, where for two years he con- 
 tinued his research work and also attended lectures at the University, 
 returning to America at the beginning of the year 1898. 
 
 In 1898 he was appointed Tutor in History in the College of the 
 City of New York, and in 1900 was made Instructor, a position he 
 now holds. 
 
 In the School of Philosophy of Columbia University Mr. Schuy- 
 'ler studied under President Butler in Philosophy and under Dean 
 Burgess and Dr. Robinson and Dr. Osgood in American and Europ- 
 ean History. 
 
 In the Graduate School of the New York University he took 
 courses in Comparative Constitutional Government and American 
 Constitutional History under Prof. Brown, and in Comparative 
 Religion under the Rev. Prof. Ellinwood, and in 1904 received the 
 degree of Doctor of Phi1oso])hy. 
 
 He has written a number of articles on historical subjects. 
 

 U^^'^M 
 
 \0 
 
rnH^ CIRCULATipN DEPARTMENT ^865 
 TO^— #► zUZ Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 |^:\Y30 1989 
 
 ?zz. CiR. M 30 "89 
 
 APR 1 2 fflS 
 
 "HbC.aHG. JAI 
 
 rhs95- 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720