Volume 2 — CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION

We have had brought before us all the instances of any importance, 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 interfere; 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 application 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 Revolutionary struggle.

In New York the Governor himself was responsible for the introduction of the press and for forty years (1692–1734), it took no active part in political agitations, maintaining a cautious neutrality under Bradford. 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. 324From 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 inhabitants 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 distinction 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 nonpolitical 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 England 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.

325In 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 conservative, while between would stand New York.

Of one thing we may be confident. In no colony would the Governor, 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 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.

Livingston Rowe Schuyler.

New York City.

(Concluded next month.)

326