WHEN I undertook the publishing of a daily paper, it was with the intention of annihilating, if possible, the intriguing, wicked, and indefati­gable faction, which the French had formed in this country. I was fully aware of the arduousness of the task, and of the inconvenience and dan­ger to which it would expose both me and mine. I was prepared to meet the rancorous vengence of enemies in the hour of their triumph, and the coolness of friends in the hour of my peril: in short, to acquire riches seemed to me quite uncertain, and to be stripped of every farthing of my property seemed extremely probable; but let what would happen, I was resolved to pur­sue the contemplated object, as long as there remained the most distant probability of success.

[Page 22]Among the dangers, which presented them­selves to me, those to be apprehended from the severity of the law appeared the most formidable; more especially as I happened to be situated in the State of Pennsylvania, where the government, generally speaking, was in the hands of those, who had (and sometimes with great indecency) manifested an uniform partial­lity for the sans-culotte French, and as unifom an opposition to the ministers and measures of the Federal Government. These persons I knew I had offended by the promulgation of disagreeable truths; and, therefore, it was na­tural, that I should seek for some standard as a safe rule for my conduct with respect to the liber­ty of my press.

To set about the study of the law of libels, to wade through fifty volumes of mysterious tauto­logy, was what I had neither time nor patience to do. The English press was said to be ensla­ved; but, when I came to consult the practice of this enslaved press, I found it still to be far too free for me to attempt to follow its example. Finally, it appeared to me to be the safest way, to form to myself some rule founded on the liber­ty exercised by the American press. I conclud­ed, that I might, without danger, go as great lengths in attacking the enemies of the country as others went in attacking its friends: that as much zeal might be shown in defending the Ge­neral Government and administration as in ac­cusing and traducing them: and that as great warmth would be admissible in the cause of virtue, order, and religion, as had long been tolerated in the wicked cause of villainy, [Page 23] insurrection, and blasphemy. What ever ran­cour might be harboured against me in the breasts of particular persons, I depended on shame to restrain the arm of power: I thought no officer or officers of state, would, in this country, dare to deal towards an honest man with a rigour which had never been experienc­ed by the vilest of miscreants. Alas! ‘all this I thought, and all I thought was wrong;’ as the following sheets will most clearly evince.

Before I enter on the account of the ground­less prosecution which this Pennsylvania state government has compelled me to sustain, it is ne­cessary to notice some steps that were taken by my enemies previously thereto.

Some time in the month of August last, the Spanish Minister Don Carlos Martinez de'Yru­jo, applied to the Federal Government to pro­secute me for certain matters published in my Gazette, against himself and that poor unfortu­nate and humbled mortal, Charles the fourth, King of Spain. The government consented, and I was accordingly bound over, before the Honourble Judge Peters, to appear in the Fe­deral district court, which will meet next April.

Of this preparatory step to a fair and imparti­al trial the Don was informed. But, it would seem, the information was far from being satis­factory to him; for, he delivered in a memori­al to the Federal Government, requesting (for what reason I leave the reader to determine) that the trial might come on before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, of which court M'Kean is Chief Justice.

[Page 24]Thus foiled in the grand object, a new scru­tiny was, without much regard to decency, set on foot; new pretended libels were hunted out; and, an application to prosecute me was made to the government of Pennsylvania. It is hardly necessary to say that consent was speedi­ly obtained. A bill of indictment was prepared by the attorney General of the state, and a war­rant, of which the following is a copy was issued to sieze me.

If I did not well know, that all instruments of this kind, coming from under the hand and seal of a Judge, are, by privilege immemorial, exempted from the lash of criticism, I should most certainly be tempted to try my hand on the warrant.—For instance: the Commonwealth is called US, and this may be proper enough, as the Commonwealth, in the modern stile, means the citizens thereof. But, what shall we make of the passage, where it is said, that I endeavoured to alienate the affections of the Spaniards from the citizens of the United States and of US; that is, from the citizens of the United States, and from the citizens of US; and this last sentence means, from the citizens of the citizens of the Commonwealth! In the name of mercy what is all this! Is the form intended to convey a no­tion, that the citizens of Pennsylvania have other citizens under their controul and government; or that the citizens of the Commonwealth are [Page 26] their own citizens, and that WE govern US?— A projector some few years ago received a prize medal from the philosophical society of Philadel­phia, for having invented an American language. I wonder if this warrant be a specimen of it?

But, let us return to more solid matter.

The trifling circumstances attending an arrest and giving bail are scarcely worth relating; but, sometimes, trifling circumstances serve to convey a more correct idea of the character of the par­ties concerned in a transaction, and to guide the reader to a more just appreciation of their mo­tives, than the longest and most laboured gene­ral account of their conduct.

The Sheriff (whose civility and candour I have every reason to applaud) came to my house, for the first time, at twelve o'clock; and he was ordered to have me before the Judge at half past one. Thank God, I am not versed in arrests; but, I believe, this is the first time, that ever a man, prosecuted for a libel, was pinned down to the short space of an hour and a half to prepare for going out and to procure himself bail. The English reader (for this pamphlet shall be read in England) will observe, that this government of Pennsylvania, is that which is everlastingly boasting of the mildness and hu­manity of its laws.

I was not so destitute of friends as, perhaps, the Judge expected I was. Bail was pro­cured, and we were before him at the appointed time.

[Page 27]He asked us to sit down. I seated myself on one side of the fire, and he on the other. After he had talked on for some time to very little pur­pose (at least as to the effect his talk produced on me), he shewed me certain newspapers, and asked me if I had printed and published them. To this I replied, that the law did not require me to answer any questions in that stage of the busi­ness, and that, therefore, I should not do it. At this reply, though a very prudent and a very proper one, "he waxed exceeding wroth." He instantly ordered me to get off my chair and stand up before him, though he himself had in­vited me to sit down. This species of resent­ment, so becoming in a Judge, excited in my mind no other sentiments than that which I dare say it has already excited in the mind of the reader.

The next document, which follows in due course, is THE BILL OF INDICTMENT; the IGNORAMUS Bill of Indictment.—Go over it with attention, I beseech thee, reader; or else, take my word for it, you will be just as wise when you have done, as you are now. You must have your eyes well about you; keep a sharp look out for parenthesises and quotations; and, above all you must hold your breath to the bottom of a paragraph; if you can't do this, you will no more understand it than you would the croaking of a frog or the cakling of a goose.— Therefore, again I say, attention!

THIS Bill of Indictment, however insignifi­cant it may be in itself, has already made con­siderable noise in the world, and it will yet make a great deal more. Papers of this sort generally travel from the court to the clerk's office; and there they lodge in eternal sleep. But this Bill is certainly destined to another fate. Neptune will lend his waves and Aeolus his winds to con­duct it over the deep. It will see climes that the inventors of it never saw, nor ever will see. Little did they imagine, that they were becom­ing authors, and authors of such celebrity too, as, if it please God, I will render them.

The identical copy of this precious document of liberty, which I received from the clerk's office, stamped with the arms of poor Pennsyl­vania, I shall send to London by the next pack­et, addressed to MR. REEVES'S loyal society of the Crown and Anchor. When they are infest­ed with the reformists, or any other noisy gang [Page 32] of liberty men, they will have nothing to do but show them this Bill, and say: ‘Here, you dis­contented dogs, is this what you are barking after? If it be, go to that free country, Ameri­ca.’ I am much mistaken if the bare sight of it would not make more converts to their cause than all the means, that their talents and their laudable zeal have hitherto invented or employ­ed. It is a sample of the liberty which the dis­affected in Britain are sighing after; and they would exclaim with the old miller in the fable, "if such is the sample, what must be the sack!"

The charges contained in the Bill of Indict­ment, lie buried in such a multitude of words which mean nothing, or at least nothing to the purpose, that they are very difficult to be under­stood. Some one says of a man extremely ver­bose in his conversation, that "his wit is like three grains of wheat in a bushel of chaff;" and exactly the same may with truth be said of the meaning of this Bill. The three libels, as they are called, may all be contained in a quarter of a page, whereas the Bill is swelled out to three or four pages. Let us, then, sift out the three grains of wheat, leaving the chaff behind.

The best way of doing this, and of enabling the reader to form a correct judgment both as to their import and their tendency, will be to lay before him the three publications (in which they are to be found) entire and undistorted, marking the pretended libellous parts in it [...]licks.

These, reader, are the three publications, for which, under the free and equal government of Pennsylvania. I have been harrassed with a cri­minal prosecution; for which (besides the ex­pence inseperable from all law concerns) I have been subjected to the infamy of an arrest, and have been dragged from my home, to the inju­ry of my affairs and the great alarm of my wife and family.

I would not insult the respectable gentlemen, who composed the majority of the Grand Jury, [Page 37] or the good sense of the reader, by any attempt of mine to prove that nothing contained in these publications is of a libellous nature. If these are libels, there is no book sacred or profane, which might not be construed into a libel. Every history contains libel upon libel against kings, queens and ministers. If these are libels, who is safe? In such a state of things a man may draw down the punishment of a murderer on himself while he is saying his prayers or singing of psalms.

Of the three publications, the two first only originated in my Gazette: the other was taken from the Gazette of the United States, published by Mr. Fenno. Of this latter circumstance I shall speak more fully, when I come to the Chief Judge's charge.

The two publications, which made their first appearance through my means, I have not the honour to be the writer of. They were both written by gentlemen of this city; native Ame­ricans, men who were determined whigs during the war for independence, republicans in prin­ciple, and firmly attached to the present go­vernment.

In the first of these two publications, though there is certainly nothing libellous, I am ready to confess there is a great deal of warmth; and if the admission of an essay extraordinarily warm, abounding in strong expressions of resentment and indignation, were ever justifiable, they most assuredly were on such an occasion. The commu­nication [Page 38] of the OLD SOLDIER was sent me at a mo­ment, when the city of Philadelphia, just quiet­ed after the appeal of the French Minister Adet,^* rang with the daring, the degrading, the con­temptuous insult, which the Spaniard Yrujo had offered to the government of America and to every individual living under it.

He had published a most audacious letter to Mr. Pickering, the Secretary of State, contain­ing a summary of all that is insolent. This let­ter had been handed and hawked about the city; and had, by his secretary, been sent to every public print for insertion. It was gone forth to the universe; and, that it tended to de­grade and defame America, we need no other proof than the following paragraph from the London Gazette of the 14th of September.— ‘The Americans are, according to our last ad­vices from New-York, paying dear for their independence. The French take all their ves­sels, block up their very rivers, punish their seamen like malefactors, and actually make them pay for the shot they fire at them; while the Spanish Minister, with impunity, insults and braves their poor enfeebled government. He has written to Timothy Pickering, Esq. their first Secretary of State (see our Gazette of yesterday) in a language that Buonaparte would not venture to assume to his Cisalpinc convention, or citizen Noel to the fallen and degraded Dutch: and what very much aggra­vates the insult, he has, without, permission from the President of the general Congress, [Page 39] communicated this letter to the people, as a sort of manifesto, or appeal, to them from their government. Nothing of this kind, we believe, ever before passed unresented, except in a conquered or invaded country; and we cannot help lamenting, that so very little spi­rit should be found in any people, but particu­larly in a people, who boast their origin from Britons.’

This paragraph, or at least the substance of it, I have seen in three London papers and in one Dublin paper; so that, it may be fairly con­cluded, its currency is by this time general, not only in the British dominions, but all over Eu­rope.—And, I pray, was no one to attempt to wipe away the stigma? Though the public pa­pers had been made subservient to the spreading of this deep shame and disgrace abroad, was no printer to admit any thing that served to mark the strong indignation it inspired at home? Was the press to be free for the Spaniard alone? Was he to be allowed to taunt and threaten and despise; and were the poor Americans to sew up their lips, or only mutter their impotent an­ger in secret? If this be so; if no man, by as­suming a bold, an indignant, and retaliating tone, was to make an effort to rescue his coun­try and himself from dishonour, without being harrassed with a prosecution, without hazarding the punishment of a murderer, ours is a fallen state indeed! If this be liberty and independence, or whatever else it may be called, God grant me the enjoyment of its opposite. If this be free­dom, may I be a bondsman, yea a very slave, to the end of my days.

I shall now come to Judge M'Kean's Charge to the Grand Jury; and shall, without going out of court, take upon me to decide on its merits.

It was a charming thing this, for me to get hold of. I had long wished to possess some such proof, some such convincing proof, of the superiority of the American liberty of the press over that enjoyed in the "Insular Bastile," Great Britain; and it is to the desire that I have of giving it a portable and durable situation, and to that alone, that this pamphlet is to be attribu­ted: for which kind intention I humbly hope his Honour will feel inclined to pardon my past misdoings. His pretty works will now be read with admiration, in countries where, I am sure, had it not been for me, his name would never have once been articulated.

When this Charge, garnished with my sim­ple and good-natured comments, comes to be served up in Britain, it will be a dish for a king. The royalists will lick their lips, and the republi­cans will cry, God bless us! The emigration for li­berty's sake will cease, and we shall have nothing but the pure unadulterated dregs of Newgate and the Fleet; the candidates for Tyburn and Bo­tany Bay. Blessed cargo! All patriots to the back-bone: true philanthropists and universal citizens; fit for any place but England in this world, and for heaven in the next.

[Page 41]The famous charge, which is to produce these excellent effects, was delivered to the Grand Ju­ry at the Court of Oyer and Terminer, above­mentioned in the Bill of Indictment. I shall not fill up my pages in copying the former part of it, which the reader will, I am persuaded, readily excuse when he has read the latter. Like two uncouth boorish visitants, the presence of the one renders all apology unnecessary for the absence of the other.

The Judge began, as, I believe, is usual, with a definition of the several crimes, which general­ly fall under the cognizance of such a court: as, treason, sodomy, rape, forgery, murder, &c. &c. But these his Honour touched slightly upon. He brushed them over as light and trifling of­fences; or rather he blew them aside as the chaff of the criminal code, in order to come at the more solid and substantial sin of LIBELLING.

The weight, or rather the measure, that his Honour gave to this crime above all others, on this particular occasion, I shall prove—not by ratiocination, but by arithmetic; by measure­ment with the aid of a Carpenter's two-foot rule; as thus:

The Charge contains separate definitions of 32 crimes, the whole of which, in the columns of the Gazette, occupy 5 F. 8 Inches, running measure; of which that of LIBELLING alone oc­cupies 3 F. 1 In. 6 P. On these dimensions I state the following

[Page 42] PROBLEM. If 32 Crimes occupy 5 F. 8 In. and 1 crime occupies 3 F. 1 In. 6 P. of how much greater magnitude ought this 1 crime to be than any 1 of the remaining 31.

SOLUTION—18 Times. Thus, then, if we are to judge from the di­mensions of the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania's charge, Libelling is eighteen times worse, more dangerous and more heinous, than robbery, forgery, treason, sodomy, or murder!

The fact is, the Charge seemed studied to ex­cite a horror of no crime but that of libelling; the court seemed met for the punishment of no­thing else, and I seemed to be the sole object of that punishment. Of this the reader will be con­vinced by a perusal of the Charge itself; and the cause he will find explained in the subsequent remarks.

CHARGE. The Chief Judge (M'KEAN), after having, as was before observed, just touched on the nature and punishment of other crimes, proceeds, with respect to LIBELS, thus:

I have ever entertained the notion of an im­mediate superintending Providence, and I most sincerely believe, that God did over-rule and di­rect all the proceedings of this Grand Jury; for they did judge with impartiality, and decide with fortitude, though their judgement and decision were not quite consonant to the wishes of the [Page 46] Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, as appeared not only from his Charge, but also from what he hinted repecting the Jury, the day after the Bill was returned.^*

So pointed, so personal a charge, I am bold to say, was never before delivered from the Bench in any country, that has the least pre­tensions to civil liberty. If it be foreseen, that a particular case, rather novel, is to come before a Grand Jury, it is the custom for Judges, as it certainly is their duty, to explain its nature, its tendency, and the law respecting it fully and minutely; but never, till the 27th day of last No­vember, did a Judge, presiding to administer justice according to the mild and impartial pre­cepts of the Common Law of England, so far forget the genuine spirit of that law as to point directly at a single offender, and to employ all the persuasion in his power to bring down chas­tisement on his head.

The Charge contains every thing calculated to awaken the apprehensions of the Grand Jury as to the effects of my conduct, and to prepos­sess their minds against my person. In every thing but elegance and animation, it was more like the zealous and impassioned pleadings of an advocate, than the calm, dignified, and im­partial [Page 47] accents that ever should breathe in the language from the Bench.

And, what was there, I pray, either in my character, in the particular case before the Grand Jury, or in the general tenor of my pub­lications, to warrant this odious departure from the excellent rules, which had their origin in de­cency and candour, and which have been ren­dered sacred by the practice of our fore-fathers? A stranger, had there been one in court, would naturally have concluded me to be a notorious defamer of innocence, a seditious and turbulent troubler of the government, a sworn enemy of morality and religion; in three words, a profli­gate, a rebel, and a blasphemer.

It hardly ever becomes a man to say much of his private character and concerns; but, on this occasion, I trust I shall be indulged for a mo­ment. I will say, and I will make that saying good against whoever shall oppose it, that I have never attacked any one, whose private charac­ter is not, in every light which it can possibly be viewed, as far beneath mine as infamy is be­neath honour.—Nay; I defy the city of Phila­delphia, populous as it is, and respectable as are its inhabitants in general, to produce me a sin­gle man, who is more sober, industrious or ho­nest; who is a kinder husband, a tenderer father, a better master, a sounder friend, or (though last not least) a more zealous and faithful subject.

Most certainly it is unseemly in any one to say thus much of himself, unless compelledt it by some public outrage on his character; but, [Page 48] when the accusation is thus made notorious, so ought the defence. And I do again and again repeat, that I fear not a comparison between my character and that of any man in the city: no, not even with that of the very Judge, who held me up as the worst of miscreants. His Honour is welcome, if he please, to carry this comparison into all the actions of our lives, public and do­mestic, and to extend it beyond ourselves to every branch of our families.

As to my writings; I never did slander any one, if the promulgation of useful truths be not slander. Innocence and virtue I have often en­deavoured to defend, but I never defamed ei­ther. I have, indeed, stripped the close-drawn veil off hypocricy; I have ridiculed the follies and lashed the vices of thousands, and have done it sometimes, perhaps, with a rude and vio­lent hand. But, these are not the days for gen­tleness and mercy. Such as is the temper of the foe, such must be that of his opponent. See­ing myself published for a rogue and my wife for a whore; being presecuted with such infamous, such base and hellish calumny in the philanthro­pic city of Philadelphia, merely for asserting the truth respecting others, was not calculated, I as­sure you, to sweeten my temper and turn my ink into honey-dew.

My attachment to order and good government nothing but the impudence of Jacobinism could deny. The object, not only of all my own pub­lications, but also of all those which I have intro­duced or encouraged, from the first moment that I appeared on the public seene to the pre­sent [Page 49] day, has been, to lend some aid in stemming the torrent of anarchy and confusion. To un­deceive the misguided, by tearing the mask from the artful and ferocious villains, who, owing to the infatuation of the poor and the supineness of the rich, have made such a fearful progress in the destruction of all that is amiable and good and sacred among men. To the government of this country, in particular, it has been my con­stant study to yield all the support in my power. When either that government, or the worthy men who administer it, have been traduced and vilified, I have stood forward in their defence; [...]d that too, in times when even its friends were some of them locked up in silence, and others giving way to the audacious violence of its foes.—Not that I am so foolishly vain as to attribute to my illiterate pen a thousandth part of the merit that my friends are inclined to al­low it. As I wrote the other day to a gentle­man who had paid me some compliments on this score, ‘I should never look at my family with a dry eye, if I did not hope to outlive my works.’ They are mere transitory beings, to which the revolutionary storm has given life, and which with that storm will expire.—But, what I contend for, and what nobody can deny, I have done all that laid in my power: all I was able by any means to accomplish, in order to coun­teract the nefarious efforts of the enemies of the American government and nation.

With respect to religion, though Mr. M'Kean was pleased to number it among the things that were in danger from the licentiousness of the press, and, of course, from poor ME, I think it [Page 50] would puzzel the devil himself to produce, from my writings, a single passage, which could, by all the powers of perversion, be twisted into an attack on it. But, it would, on the contrary, be extremely easy to prove, that I have, at all times when an opportunity offered, repelled the attacks of its enemies, the abominable battalions of Deists and Atheists, with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, and with all my strength. The bitterest drop in my pen has ever been bestowed on them; because, of all the foes of the human race, I look upon them, after the Devil, as being the greatest and most dreadful. Not a sacrilegious plunderer, from Henry VIII to Condorcet, and from Condorcet to the impi­ous Sans-Culottes of Virginia, has escaped my censure. All those who have attempted to de­grade religion, whether by open insults and cru­elties to the Clergy, by blasphemous publica­tions, or by the more dangerous poison of the malignant modern phisophy, I have ranked amongst the most infamous of mankind, and have treated them accordingly.

After this summary defence of my character and writings, the necessity of which I sincerely regret, justice demands that I should enter into an exposition of the unparalleled partiality that has been exercised towards me: and when I have done that, I pledge myself to prove, in contradiction to all the boastings which we have heard, that the press is free-er in Great Britain than in America.

To read the Chief Judge's famous Charge, one would inevitably be led to imagine, that no [Page 51] person in this country, except PETER PORCU­PINE, ever attempted to exercise the Liberty of the press, or even that pitiful portion of it which his Honour had the mercy to leave in our hands. All the other printers, one would think, had been poor passive devils, and that their sheets had contained nought but vapid songs of liberty, lying eulogies on departed rascallity, and ful­some flattery of villains in power. But, to do justice to my brother printers, to myself, and to Judge M'Kean, I am compelled to prove that this was not the case.

There are certain news-printers in this coun­try, who may be counted as a sort of blanks: creatures that have nothing of humanity about them but the mere exterior form and motion, and that are, in every other respect, as perfect­ly logs as if they had been cut out of a piece of timber. I will not degrade myself by a compa­rison between my conduct and that of these dull, senseless, inanimate beings. Let me have the same privileges as other living active creatures, and I am content.

The reader has seen all that could be conju­red up against me in the Bill of Indictment, which he may safely set down among the most virulent of my publications; for lawyers and judges know very well how to single the tares from the wheat. But, I am willing to allow him a scrutiny into every sentence I have writ­ten or published, to which the Chief Judge's Charge can possibly be made to apply, and then I will leave him to compare my "nefarious publications" with the ‘decent, candid, and [Page 52] true’ ones, which I am now about to produce from the presses that have, and still do, espouse the cause of the enemies of this country.

As libels against religion are certainly more heinous in their nature, as well as more destruc­tive in their consequences, than any that can be published against men, however estimable their characters or exalted their rank, I shall first take notice of a publication or two of this sort, which have escaped the notice of the vigilent Chief Justice of Pennsylvania: and this, I think, seems the more necessary, as the Judge included reli­gion among the objects endangered by the licen­tiousness of the press.

In the Summer of 1796, a work was publish­ed by one STEPHENS (an Irish Patriot, who has since spunged his creditors), entitled: "Chris­tianity contrasted with Deism:" And, by a mas­ter-piece of baseness, before unheard of among the most infamous of scribblers, my assumed name, PETER PORCUPINE, was inserted in the title page, in order to give currency to the per­nicious production.

This pamphlet abounded with the most daring impiety; and, though I will not take upon me to say that the Chief Justice ever saw it, he must have heard of its existence; for it was not only advertised for sale but there were also a consider­able number of paragraphs respecting it, both in BACHE's and MR. FENNO's paper.

As to the AGE OF REASON, its publication, by BACHE and others, is too notorious a fact to [Page 53] be for a moment dwelt upon. This blasphe­mous work has been spread all over the state, and through this city in particular.

BACHE has, for years past, and does now, publish and sell, what is called the ‘Republican Calendar;’ in which the Christian Aera is sup­planted by that of the degrading Atheistical Decadery of France.

All these publications, and many more that might be mentioned, have been, and yet are, pub­lished in Pennsylvania. Their evident and in­evitable tendency, is, to corrupt the young, mislead the ignorant, abash the timid, degrade the priest-hood, and, finally, to subvert and de­stroy, root and branch, the Christian Religion and all its inestimable blessings.

I have the same opinion of the Judge's law knowledge that most people have; but he must certainly know, that Christianity is part of the law of the l [...]nd; that to deride and blaspheme it is punishable by the common law; and that it is the duty of all magistrates, more particularly Judges, to make the law, in this respect known, and to see it executed.

Yet, in the state of Pennsylvania, under so watchful a Chief Justice, this salutary law, in­tended to preserve from indignity the religion of our forefathers; to enforce a respect for the laws of God, and to promote our eternal salva­tion, has been suffered to sleep in oblivion; while the sanguinary Twelve Tables of Rome have been resorted to, in order to enhance the [Page 54] magnitude of the crime of satirizing the Spanish king and his minister!—Gracious God! can the descendants of Britons ever approve of this violence on the common law of England?

The Judge tells us that, with respect to libels, the common law is confirmed by the constitution of Pennsylvania; and every one knows, that the common law of America is neither more nor less than the common law of England.—Now, it is well known, that the publisher of Paine's Age of Reason has been prosecuted in England; that LORD KENYON termed it a ‘nefarious publication, intended for the most malignant purposes;’ and that the jury instantly found the defendant GUILTY.—But England is, in this respect, no more fit to be compared with America than LORD KENYON is to be compar­ed with Judge M'KEAN.

I have been told, indeed, that the article of the constitution, which provides for an entire freedom as to religious worship and opinions, forbids any restraint on the press where subjects of this sort are agitated. If this be true, and if M'KEAN's doctrine of libels be also true, all that the American press has gained by the "Glorious Revolution," is, the horrid liberty of blaspheming the Almighty!

Quitting libels against religion, let us come to those of a less horrid, though not less odious nature.

The Chief Justice tells us, that ‘the honour of families has been s [...]ained, and the greatest [Page 55] services and virtue blasted;’ and he before told us, that this evil it was peculiarly the duty of the Supreme Court to repress.

I have before observed, and I repeat it again and again, that innocence or virtue was never at­tacked by me; and hence it is impossible that I can ever have brought a stain on a family. Whether others have done this in Philadelphia, I leave the reader to judge from the following passages of a pamphlet, published here about two years and a half ago.

The subject of the author's censure, is a de­bate in Congress. After calling one member an Ass and another a Snap-Turtle, he comes to a Gentleman of New-Jersey, who now fills an office of great trust under the Federal Government, of whom and of whose family he speaks thus: ‘Not that I would declaim against Congress wages, for I think they ought to have at least ten dollars a day; otherwise an ho­nourable member from Jersey will not be able to keep Mrs. B . . . . . . . in town during the next session.^*—Ten dollars, I think, will de­fray all expences—The honourable represen­tatives may then play cards and dice, and bil­liards, and do many other things—and Mrs. B . . . . . . . may afford to knock off a few bottles of Madeira with some of her soft rosy-nosed visitors, without sinking her honourable spouse forty shillings below par.’

From members of Congress and their wives, the author comes to the Clergy and theirs. Few [Page 56] people have forgotten, that, in 1795, a Sermon on National Gratitude was preached in this city, by a leraned Divine, then at the head of Princeton College. In the course of this much admired sermon, the preacher took occasi­on to censure the Age of Reason; and this it was that brought on him, from our decent writer, the following attack: ‘Notwithstanding his conster­nation, he does not forget to bullyrag Tom Paine. Forty two miles did he trudge through thick and thin, Jonah like, to save this our Nineveh by reading a sermon, and may hea­ven reward his labours! May the fountains of Helicon gush from his brains;—And may all the curbers of the factious, sip nocturnal inspi­ration from the lips of the muse of Morven, at the limped streams of Stony-brook, nor be pestered with a d....d wife;—May they ne­ver be dragged head-foremost down the steps of Nassau-Hall, nor be pelted with brick bats and potatoes.’

Is this "decent, candid, and true"? And, if it be not, how came it to ‘escape with impuni­ty?’ How came it not to attract the attention of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, whose ‘peculiar duty it is to repress and correct such excesses?’ —The book was published in all the news-papers; it was sold by all the booksel­lers except me; it was even hawked about the streets, and was the subject of universal censure and abhorrence; and yet the Supreme Court never did censure it; nor did the Chief Justice ever feel himself ‘impressed with the duties of his station’ to bind the author or publisher over!

[Page 57]The author was known to a certain Secretary; was even his intimate acquaintance and compa­nion; and his pamphlet abounds with invec­tives against Great Britain, and high sounding compliments to France. His politics, I suppose, he had the prudence to intend as a sort of atone­ment for his offences.

From the staining of families let us turn to the attacks of men in their public capacities.

The Chief Justice tells us, that, when defa­matory writings are published ‘against persons in a public capacity, they receive an aggrava­tion, as they tend to scandalzie the govern­ment, &c. &c.’

This doctrine, by-the-bye, I believe few men, except those in a public capacity will relish. It is exactly contrary to the spirit, as well as the letter, of the little pamphlet, entitled, "The Constitution of Pennsylvania."—In that inesti­mable performance, there is one Chapter con­taining a list of what are there called "the es­sential principles of liberty," which are positive­ly declared to be excepted out of the general powers of government, and fixed on for ever to remain inviolate.—Among the precious things thus carefully preserved, is, the liberty of the press; and it is said, that no law shall be made to restrain any person, ‘who undertakes to ex­amine the proceedings of the legislature or any branch of government.’ And again it says, that, ‘in prosecutions for the publication [Page 58] of any papers, investigating the official con­duct of officers, or men in a public capacity, the truth thereof may be given in evidence.’

Thus, you see, this pamphlet of Pennsylvania holds out to the world, that men in a public ca­pacity are more open to the censure of the press than the sovereign citizens are, which is, indeed, no more than reasonable; but this Judge, this learned expositor of the law and constitution, tells us, that censorious writings receive an ag­gravation, when written against persons in a public capacity!

However, be it so. Let us prefer the Judge's assertion to the declaration of the sovereign people of Pennsylvania. Let us, for a moment, look upon their constitution as merely intended to amuse them and the world; and then let us see what this State Government, and this same Judge, have permitted to pass unreproved and unnoticed, in writers inimical to the Federal Government, and notoriously in the pay of France.

I could here produce volumes of the most attrocious calumny against the Federal Govern­ment and its officers individually; but, besides my want of room, I am prevented by the noto­riety of the fact. Every one in America knows what I have here generally stated, to be true; and it is therefore necessary to introduce only a few instances for the information of foreigners.

BACHE, in his paper, No. 1037, after load­ing the Executive of the United States with va­rious [Page 59] false and infamous charges, says: ‘And are we so corrupted and debased as to give up this precious jewel (Independence) to the in­trigues of rascals and traitors, who are about to sell themselves and their country?’

This is pretty well for the Executive. Now let us hear what CALLENDER (in his ‘Histo­ry of the United States for 1796’) says of the Congress in a lump—"If a man," says he, ‘was to be kept a twelve month in irons, and then to be hanged for stealing one horse, what ought to be done with the Congress and their agents, who forcibly pilfered so many that are yet un­paid for?’ —I must leave JUDGE M'KEAN to answer this question; for he was, I believe, one of the Congress that Callender alludes to. However, lest any offender should slip him, the Historian takes care to include in his censure, the second, the third, and the fourth Congress.

From the Government in general we will now come to particular members of it.—The Judge tells us, if publications, ‘containing per­sonal invectives, low scurrillity, and slande­rous charges, were to escape with impunity, the fairest and best characters, that this or any other country ever produced, would be vilifi­ed and blasted, if not ruined.’

Now then, let us hear BACHE again; the mouth-piece of the French faction, and fre­quently the companion of the Chief Justice at Civic Festivals.—This atrocious wretch, in his paper of the 9th of July, 1795, has the follow­ing paragraph:—"The day" [the 4th of July] ‘[Page 60]was closed by the exhibition of a transparent painting, with the figure of John Jay upon it. The figure was in full stature, holding in his right hand a pair of scales, containing in one scale, American liberty and Independence, kick­ing the beam; in the other, British Gold, in extreme preponderance. In his left hand a Treaty, which he extended to a group of Se­nators, who were grinning with pleasure and grasping at the Treaty. From the mouth of the figure issued these words: come up to my price, and I will sell you my country. The fi­gure was burned at Kensington amidst the ac­clamations of hundreds of citizens. Thus terminated the anniversary of American In­dependence.’

This recalls to our minds two valuable facts: 1st, that this infamous libel did ‘escape with impunity!’ and 2d, that the exhibition and actions which it records, did also ‘escape with impunity;’ and that too in this city, under the eye of this very Judge M'Kean And, what is more, a gentleman, who, like a good citizen, turned out of his bed to endeavour to put a stop to the scandalous and disgraceful procession, was assaulted in a most cowardly and cruel man­ner, and never obtained the least satisfaction. Not one of the rabble, nor of the ring-leaders, nor of the printers, who stimulated them to acti­on, and who recorded their atrocities as honour­able deeds, was ever punished, or "bound over," or even reprimanded!—But this was a riot and a libel against a worthy man, an officer of the Federal Government, and no tool of France; and [Page 61] these circumstances must account for what can­not otherwise be accounted for.

BACHE, in his paper, No. 1460, calls the Honourable John Jay, then Chief Justice of the United States of America, and now Governor of the State of New-York: he calls this gentle­man, "that damned arch traitor JOHN JAY."— And yet he was never "bound over;" and yet he never was personally attacked from the Bench; but, on the contrary, has often, since that time as well as before, sat at the same board with the Chief Justice!

I could here name at least one hundred of the greatest and best men, that this country ever produced, who have been vilified by this repro­bate descendant of Old Franklin; but, for the reasons before mentioned, I shall forbear the enumeration, and content myself with an in­stance or two of his attacks on the character of GENERAL WASHINGTON, for which every good man, in every part of the world, must and will execrate the libeller and his supporters.

He published PAINE's letter to the GENERAL; [...]f which he claimed an exclusive copy-right, and which he boasted of having received from Paris for the purpose of publication. In this work, GENERAL WASHINGTON and the CON­STITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, are both the objects of obloquy and reproach. The worthy old veteran and statesman, whose endeavours have so eminently contributed to the greatness and prosperity of his country, is called, ‘the patron of fraud,’ — ‘an imposter, or an apos­tate.’ [Page 62] —Yet the vile printer was never ‘bound over.’

Thus was the city of Philadelphia disgraced. Thus did the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania qui­etly look on, and observe the propagation of a libel, that has excited universal indignation in the breasts of unconcerned foreigners, and for which both the writer and the printer are cen­sured by their very partizans.

But, this was not the last stab that the literary assassin had in reserve for the character of this great and good man, and for the honour of America.

The day that the GENERAL closed his pub­lic labours (the 4th of March, 1797,) BACHE, after announcing his retirement from the Office of President, says: ‘If there ever was a period for rejoicing this is the moment—every heart, in unifon with the freedom and happiness of the people, ought to beat high with exultation, that the name of WASHINGTON from this day ceases to give currency to political iniquity, and to legalize corruption.’

Yet, we are not at the worst: for, on the 13th of March, 1797, this viperous Grand Son of Old Franklin, accused the same eminent person of murder! brought forward a long, formal, and circumstantial charge of cool, deliberate assassi­nation, ‘committed by GEORGE WASHINGTON, late President of the United States.’

[Page 63]The Chief Justice has not forgotten, I dare say, that I was the only printer in the United States (with shame be it spoken) who had the zeal and the industry to search for the documents relative to the affair alluded to (which took place in 1753); to expose the falacy of the charge, and to hold the vile instrument of France up to universal abhorrence.

One would have thought, whatever might be the secret dispositions of the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, that outward appearances, common decency, would have led them to take some little notice of these outrages or a public and private character, respected, es­teemed, and revered by the wise and the virtu­ous of all nations. More especially one would have expected this from a Judge, who now seems to be so anxious to preserve the reputa­tion of "youth in its innocence," and of "old age in its gravity and wisdom;" who now, in order to excite a horror against libelling, goes back to that cruel code, the Twelve Tables of Rome, and the no less sanguinary laws of Valentinian; who, in his zeal to make an example, does not think it derogatory to his honourable station to point at a particular man, and call on the Jury, in ex­press terms, for their "aid" in his punishment; and finally, who expresses his determination to pursue the vice of libelling with "zeal and in­dignation." From such a Judge, who would not have expected an interference; who does not be­lieve, who does not know, and does not say, that he should have been "impressed with the duties of his station," when the reputation of the Fede­ral government was daily and hourly attacked in [Page 64] his presence; when the fame and character of GENERAL WASHINGTON were bleeding at every pore, and when the French printer BACHE and his coadjutors were pursuing the Aged Ve­teran to his domestic retreat with all the hellish malignity of Parisian cannibals?—Yes, this was the time for him to be "impressed with the du­ties of his station." This was the time for him to exert his authority of binding over; to unfold and enforce the severity of the law, and estab­lish his character for impartiality:—but, this time is past.

Thus have we seen the Chief Justice of Penn­sylvania wink at the most daring and wicked libels, against God and against man, that a wri­ter can conceive or a printer can print. But, we are not yet come to what may be pro­perly called a case in point.

I was prosecuted for publications levelled against a foreign prince, government, and mini­ster; to form therefore a just estimation of the conduct and motives of those who urged the prosecution, we must take a sketch (and a very slight one will serve) of what other printers have published, with impunity, against other govern­ments, nations, and princes.

But, before I enter on this subject, I think myself called on to make a few remarks on that part of the Judge's Charge, which dwells, with such emphasis and seeming dread, on the danger of offending foreign nations and potentates, par­ticularly the tender-hearted rulers of France and the king of the country of the Inquisition.

[Page 65]After telling the Grand Jury, that I had ‘ransacked our language for terms of reproach and insult against every disti [...]guished character in France and Spain,’ he tells them, that, "without their aid," my conduct cannot be cor­rected, and concludes by observing, that ‘the government that will not discountenance, may be thought to adopt it, and be deemed justly chargeable with all the consequences.’ —Then follow an instance of the great danger of offend­ing foreign nations in this way: the Judge re­fers to history above a hundred years back, and very gravely tells the Grand Jury, that ‘Some medals and dull jests are mentioned and repre­sented as a ground of quarrel between the En­glish and Dutch in 1672, and likewise caused Lewis the 14th to make an expedition into the United Provinces of the Netherlands in the same year, and nearly ruined that Common­wealth.’

This was an example in terrorem, and was evidently cited for the purpose of impressing on the minds of the Jury, the peril that their coun­try might be placed in from suffering me to "escape with impunity." But, granting for a moment, that laying a restraint on the press, for fear the effects of its freedom should offend foreign powers; allowing that such an act is not to the last degree shameful and debasing, and only suited to a country in the most abject state of vassalage; allowing this, let us see if the Judge's quotation was quite correct and candid.

Now, I say, and every one of the most super­ficial reading knows, that the medals and dull [Page 66] jests alluded to, never were, nor are they any where (except in this learned Charge) ‘mention­ed and represented as a ground of quarrel between the English and Dutch in 1672,’ nor at any other period. HUME, who, it will hardly be­denied, is at least as good an authority as Penn­sylvania's Chief Judge, does indeed say, that ‘certain medals and pictures were made the miserable pretext of a most scandalous breach of faith,’ on the part of the profligate Charles II; but he tells us that the real grounds of the war, were, the inordinate ambition of Lewis XIV, and the thirst for riches and arbitrary power of the corrupted ministry of England, well known by the name of the CABAL.

Besides had medals and dull jests really been, as they were not, the grounds of the war, can­dour should have led the Judge to continue his reference to history a little further, and to tell the Grand Jury how that war terminated, and how the nearly ruined Commonwealth behaved with respect to the medals and dull jests.

Lewis XIV did, indeed, make a devastating and cruel expedition into the Netherlands, and reduced the Dutch to the last extremity by land, while the combined fleets of England and France nearly blocked up their ports and ruined their commerce. In this awful state of their affairs, the two unprincipled Monarchs made known to them their pretensions, which, among many other humiliating terms, specified, that ‘all persons guilty of writing seditious libels against them, should, on complaint, be banished for ever from the States.’ —The Commonwealth, though, [Page 67] as the Judge says, nearly ruined, scorned the in­solent pretensions; and, following the example of the PRINCE OF ORANGE (afterwards our WILLIAM III, of glorious memory) nobly re­solved ‘to resist the haughty victors, and to de­fend those last remains of their native soil, of which neither the irruptions of Lewis, nor the inundation of waters, had as yet bereaved them. Should even the ground fail them on which they might combat, they were still re­solved not to yield the generous strife; but, flying to their settlements in the Indies, erect a new empire in those remote regions, and preserve alive, even in the climates of slavery, that liberty of which Europe was become un­worthy.’

This is what Mr. M'Kean should have told the Grand Jury; and, he should have told them besides, that this brave resolution of the Dutch met with a glorious reward; that a few months saw their gallant fleet a match for those of the two monarchs united, and that the haughty king of France, driven by the PRINCE OF ORANGE from fortress to fortress and from Province to Province, at last entered his vain and frivolous capital covered with defeat and disgrace, before the triumphal arch of St. Dennis, erected for the celebration of his conquests, was completely out of the hands of the architect!

This is the passage of history, which, above all others, the republican car dwells on with pleasure; this is what the Chief Judge should have related to the jury; but, this would not have answered his purpose. Such an example [Page 68] of republican fortitude and heroism would have sounded well from the lips of his Honour; but, the Grand Jury of Philadelphia showed by their righteous decision, that they stood not in need of examples from history to stimulate them to act agreeably to the dictates of their conscience, and to reject with disdain every idea of fear, that their acquitting an innocent man might bring down on themselves and their country the chas­tisement of foreign nations.

Before I conclude my remarks on this part of the Charge, I cannot refrain from noticing the very odious impression it is calculated to give the world with respect to the government, and the character of the American nation.

It is well known, that, at the time when the paragraphs against Spain and France were pub­lished, and when the charge was delivered, the former nation was in the open violation of their treaty with this country, which had just then been grossly insulted by their minister; and that the latter were plundering its commerce in every part of the world, blocking up its rivers, lashing its sea-faring citizens like convicts, and driving its humble negociators from their capital with scorn and reproach. These circumstances ta­ken into consideration, what must foreigners in­fer from the Charge? Will they not say, and very justly too: ‘such is your liberty of the press, such your boasted independence, that, let a nation trample on your rights, deride, insult, rob, and torture you, and your government ever stands ready to inflict the punishment of a murderer on the first man, who, in resenting [Page 69] your injuries, shall step one inch beside the line of the labyrinthian law of constructive libels; and this cruelty it condescends to, lest its lenity to its friends and supporters should give umbrage to an insolent and perfidious foe!’ —Yes; this will they say; and if there be an American, who can patiently bear the disgraceful imputation; I admire his Christian humility; but I envy him not his liberty, his independence, or his republicanism.

After all, allowing that America is so beggar­ed in means and so humbled in spirit; allowing these independent states to be already reduced to a pitch of general vassalage, that renders such a sacrifice to the pride and insolence of foreign nations prudent and necessary; allowing that the Judge made all this appear to be true, let us return, and see what the printers of the French faction have published against other govern­ments, nations, and princes, without his feeling himself ‘impressed with the duties of his sta­tion,’ to bind them over.

Now, reader, prepare yourself for a catalogue of the most indecent, blackest, and most infa­mously libellous expressions, that ever dropped from the lips or pen of mortal man. The French language is very weak and steril com­pared to ours, particularly in terms of reproach and abuse. Their rascals spend their breath for half an hour in noisy volubility, to produce a faint idea of what ours can express in one short grind of the teeth. But, all this bitterness, all the force and fury, of this our dear mother tongue, the crafty Gaul has, we are now about to [Page 70] see, had the address to bring over into his own service.

To begin with CALIENDER: this little rep­tile, who, from outward appearances seems to have been born for a Chimney sweep, and to be now following the sooty trade, made his escape from the hands of Justice in Scotland, in the year 1793, after being apprehended as the author of a libellous pamphlet, entitled ‘The Political Pro­gress of Britain.’

This work, which is of considerable bulk, is nothing but a string of falshoods, interspersed with the most audacious libels on the British ministry, and every branch of the Royal Fami­ly, which latter the author calls, the ‘ruffian race of British Kings.’ —In one place he calls the Right Honourable William Pitt, a hardened Swindler, and in an other, he calls His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales a murderer. He, in one short sentence, consigns to infamy both the Royal Family and the people at large. "Since the Norman Conquest," says he, ‘Eng­land has been governed by thirty-three so­vereigns; and, of these, two thirds were, each of them by an hundred different actions, deserving of the gibbet; and the people seem to have been as perfectly divested of every ho­nourable feeling, as Majesty itself.’

Well, this pamphlet, though abounding in such atrocious libels as these, and though the author in his preface, boasts of having been obliged to fly from his country for publishing it, was re­published in Philadelphia, and was never dis­countenanced [Page 71] by the government or the Chief Justice. Nay CALLENDER says, in his preface, that certain gentlemen, and particularly Mr. Jef­ferson, the Vice President of the United States, had encouraged him to give an American edition of this infamous performance!

I have a dozen sources to which I could ap­ply for libels against foreign princes and states. BROWN has been guilty of crimes of this kind without number, and so have DUNLAP and his successors. The CLAYPOOLES, no longer ago than September last, calls Her Majesty the Queen of Portugal a Crazy Lady and a Lunatic. OS­WALD, to the day of his death, published at least forty libels regularly, two days in a week; but he is dead; I shall therefore leave him, and come to BACHE, the Chief Judge's companion at Civic Festivals.

There is not a prince or power of Europe, who has discovered the least inclination to op­pose the French, or discredit their infamous prin­ciples, whom this caitiff printer and his support­ers have not libelled in the most outrageous man­ner.—The Emperor of Germany and his gene­rals have been called thieves and scoundrels a thousand times; the King of Prussia, before his defection, was called a Sharper; the Empress of Russia, in No. 1361, is called a She-Bear. But, the British nation, government, and king, have been the constant objects of their most wicked calumnies. Mr. SMITH of Baltimore, in open Congress, called the King of Great Britain, ‘a monster; a king of sea-robbers.’ His decent speech was published in all the papers of that [Page 72] day. BACHE, in his paper, No. 1036, says of Britain, that ‘dishonour mark her councils and her actions.’ In 1041, he calls the British a "perfidious nation." In 1081, he calls Britain, "that proud tyrannical and infamous kingdom." In 1083, he calls the people of Great Britain, "the bloody savage islanders." The government, in various papers, he calls, ‘that corrupt mo­narchy’ —"that corrupt government,"— ‘a mix­ture of tyranny, profligacy, brutallity, and cor­ruption.’ —In the letters of Franklin, publish­ed in his paper, he calls Admiral Murry ‘free-booter Murray.’ —In 1033, he calls His Britan­nic Majesty, "a prince of robbers." In 1048, he calls him, ‘that prince of land and sea rob­bers, GEORGE III.’ In 1031, he says, speak­ing of Great Britain, ‘I pledge you my word, that I should heartily rejoice, if the Royal Fa­mily, were all decently guillotined.’ And, final­ly, not to tire my readers with the abominations of this atrocious miscreant, he puts a mock speech into the mouth of the king of Great Britain, and makes him conclude, as under the gallows at Tyburn!

Here are insults, if you talk of insults, to fo­reign nations. Nor are these the worst. A pam­phlet once before quoted, called a Rub from Snub, has the following "decent" lines; I will not call them verses.

Was there ever such abominable outrage as this offered to mortal man any where but in A­merica? No; since the art of writing was dis­covered, there never were such libels tolera­ted against any human being, whether friend or enemy. Yet, neither the government of Penn­sylvania, nor the Chief Justice, nor any other person in authority, ever interfered. No one, amongst all these libellers, was ever prosecuted or bound over. Their politics were perfectly French, and all went smoothly on.

Let us for a moment suppose (which, howe­ver, we have no right to do), that the stupid and [Page 74] ungenerous prejudice prevailing against Great Britain, formed some trisling excuse for the re­missness (to give it the mildest term) of the ex­ecutive and judiciary of the state. Still, this could not apply to the libels published against other nations and princes; some of which had, and now have, treaties af amity with this country, and others were not, nor ever had been, its foes.

Amongst these nations there is one, the libels against which I have reserved for this place: I mean Spain. For three long years the King of Spain, his government and ministry, were the subject of constant abuse and defamation. BACHE, in No. 1028 of his vile paper, says, ‘the slaves of Madrid will soon shrink from the con­querers of Toulon.’ And in No. 1044, he has, speaking of Spain, these words: ‘The most cowardly of the human race;’ — ‘the Spa­nish slaves;’ — ‘the ignorant soldiery of the infamous tyrant of Castille.’

Now, this is the very same Prince, and the same people, that I have been prosecuted for libelling. Compare what I have said, or rather what I have published, concerning them; com­pare the passages in the Bill of Indictment with those here quoted, and then praise the impartia­lity and justice of the free and equal government of Pennsylvania▪ Don Yrujo never thought the honour of his Master, when called an infa­mous tyrant, merited his zeal to defend it; nay, the very printer, who thus defamed him, the DON has employed as the printer of his insolent letter to Mr. PICKERING! This man's conduct [Page 75] is hardly worth notice; but how shall we ac­count for the conduct of the Chief Judge of Pennsylvania? Surely the king of Spain's cha­racter ought to have been an object of his atten­tion then as well as now; unless we are willing to allow, that no character is under the protec­tion of the laws of Pennsylvania, unless it be of persons devoted to the will of France.

But, before I conclude this comparison be­tween what I have been most rigorously prosecu­ted for doing, and what others have done with impunity, I shall give the reader a specimen or two of the conduct of the officers of this Penn­sylvania Government (not excluding the Chief Judge himself), towards foreign nations and princes.

The Governor (Mifflin), assisted at a civic festi­val, when the following toasts were drunk; which were published in most of the news-papers.^*

This is pretty "decent" in a Governor; but, without stopping to remark on the peculiar de­cency of his toasting a gang of convicts, let us come to another instance of his conduct, full as "decent" as this.

[Page 76]At the civic festival, held in this city in 1794, to celebrate the dethronement of ‘Our great and good ally, Louis XVI,’ there were ‘as­sembled,’ according to the procés verbal, which was sent to the Paris Convention, ‘the CHIEFS, civil and military, of the State of Pennsylva­nia.’ —The procés verbal contains a letter to the Convention, in which the following honour­able mention is made of the Governor. ‘The governor of Pennsylvania, that ardent friend of the French republic, was present, and par­took of all our enthusiasm, and all our senti­ments.’

I believe they spoke truth; for the cannons of the State were fired, and military companies, with drums beating and colours flying, attended the execrable f [...]te, one of the ceremonies of which, was, burning the English flag; and as to the sentiments, contained in the oaths and speech­es (for there were both), they abounded in in­sults towards almost all the princes of the earth, but particularly the king of Great Britain.

M'KEAN dwells with great stress on the dan­ger to be apprehended from insulting foreign nations, more especially those with which we have negociations pending, and the persons with whom we are to treat. Well then, all the libels that I have here produced, against His Britannic Majesty, his ministers, and his people; and this "decent" conduct on the part of "the CHIEFS, civil and military, of Pennsylvania," and on the part of the Governor himself; all these libels were published, and this conduct took place, at the very time, when MR. JAY was in England, [Page 77] negociating an amicable adjustment of differences, with the British ministry and their Sovereign!

The Chief Justice, would, I dare say, be very angry not to be thought included among ‘the CHIEFS civil and military of the State of Penn­sylvania;’ but I shall leave nothing to infer­ence or supposition. Facts are what I love, and happily his conduct and character is not in want of plenty to illustrate them. I could mention one civic festival at which he assisted, where a "revolution in Great Britain" was toasted; and another, where a toast was, ‘Success to the Uni­ted Irishmen,’ then in open rebellion against their king; but, these would not, in point of time be quite to my purpose: I shall, therefore, come to one instance of his conduct that is so. It is a sort of companion piece to his Charge, and it shall, for that reason, be put exactly upon a parallel with it.

[Page 79]There is the text, reader: make the comment yourself; for I have not language to do justice to the indignant feelings that it excites in my breast.—Sum up the evidence, and judge of the candour and impartiality of the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania. All that could be conjured up against me, was included in the Bill of Indict­ment, the very harshest expression to be found in which, is, my calling the king of Spain a ‘de­generate Prince:’ while I have proved, from papers and pamphlets now in print, and to be come at by every one, that others have printed, and published to the world, that Mr. Jay is a "damned arch traitor;" General Washington a ‘patron of fraud, a legalizer of corruption, and an assassin;’ that the Empress of Russia is a "she bear," the king of Prussia "a sharper," the Queen of Portugal a "lunatic," the Prince of Wales a "murderer," the king of Great Bri­tain a ‘brute, a monster, a rascal, and a robber, worthy of the gibbet;’ and, lastly, that the king of Spain, whom I only called a degenerate prince, has been boldly declared to be ‘an in­famous tyrant!’ —And, I again and again re­peat, that the Chief Justice has suffered all this to pass immediately under his sight, unprosecu­ted, unreproved, and unnoticed; while my pub­lications have been watched with a never-slum­bering eye, and prosecuted with a rigour unpa­ralleled; while two thirds of a charge to a Grand Jury have been directly pointed at my person; while every severe maxim of our own law has been sought out; and, as if all this were not enough, while the bloody twelve tables of Rome and the laws of Valentinian have been resorted to, in order to excite a horror of [Page 80] my offence, and to draw down punishment on my head, for publishing what an enlightened and honest Grand Jury has determined, not to be li­bellous!

How difficult soever the reader may here find it to repress the emotions, which such hitherto unheard of conduct is calculated to excite, I must beg him not to indulge them, 'till I have drawn his attention to a fact, which, in the crowd of matter, I dare say has escaped him.

I have amply proved, that the pretended li­bels, for which I have been prosecuted, are to the real ones, published by others, what the glare of a taper is to a city in flames. I have proved that the very monarch, whom I termed a ‘de­generate prince,’ has been, by others, pro­claimed as "an infamous tyrant." But, there was yet one fact wanting to render this scanda­lous prosecution complete; and that fact is at hand.

The reader, by turning back to page 36, will perceive, that one of my ‘false, scandalous, and malicious libels,’ as they are most falsly and scandalously called, did not originate with me, nor in my paper. It was copied from Mr. FEN­NO's paper of an anterior date. This material circumstance was, very cautiously and candidly, kept out of the Bill of Indictment, though the heads and titles of the other two publications were mentioned; and there is every reason to believe, that it escaped the attention of the Grand Jury.

[Page 81]The Indictment, as is usual, concludes with stating the tendency of the crime, part of which is, ‘the evil example of all others in the like case offending.’ This is most certainly very proper: for, to prevent the effects of evil exam­ple, is, or ought to be, the principle object of all punishments. But, how could I be said to set the evil example, when it was notorious that I had been far surpassed by others, who had never been called to account, and when the very pub­lication, for which I was prosecuted, I had co­pied, word for word, from another printer, a na­tive of the country, and living in the same city with myself? Mr. FENNO has never been bound over. He has never been arrested: nor has he been even spoken to on the subject. He has heard of my being prosecuted; but he little imagines it was for his crimes.

Thus, in the capital of America, amidst all its vaunted liberty of the press, and under the "equal" and "humane" laws of Pennsylvania, another man has been allowed to print and publish, not only with impunity, but without reproof, a para­graph, for the re-publishing of which, I have been seized as a criminal, exposed to the danger of a heavy fine, of imprisonment at hard labour, of being crammed in a dungeon, and of suffering the punishment of a murderer!

Is this your republican justice! Is this the blessed fruit of that liberty, to obtain which all the horrors of a revolution are to be encounter­ed, kings are to be hurled from their thrones, and nations deluged in blood! Was it for this that America maintained a ten years desolating [Page 82] war; that all the ties of interest, of allegiance, of friendship, and of nature were rent assunder, and that a hundred thousand of her sons were stretched dead on the plain!—Talk not to me of your sovereign people, and your universal suf­ferage; of your political liberty and your equal rights: they are empty sounds, which I regard not. Give me security for my person and pro­perty; or, at least, let me share the fate of my neighbour. ‘Send us (said the Israelites of old); Send us, O Lord, a king, that he may render us justice.’ To ensure this last mentioned inestimable blessing, is the end of civil society, and ought to be the great object of all political institutions. Justice is the soul of freedom, as impartiality is the soul of justice; and, without these, liberty is an impostor and law is a farce.

I should here bid the reader adieu, leaving him to pour out his soul, like Judge M'Kean, in hosannahs for the ‘temporal blessings of the Representative Democracy, which the Al­mighty, in his great mercy, has vouchsafed unto us;’ but I have pledged myself to prove, that the British press is much free-er than that of America; and, notwithstanding ‘the blessings, in great mercy, vouchsafed unto us,’ I fear not, that, with the indulgence of the reader, I shall make good my promise. For the motives from which I do this I am responsible to no one: if, however, an apology is thought necessary, let it be sought for in the abominable treatment I have experienced.

Since the revolution, which terminated in the independence of these States, almost every pub­lication [Page 83] here, and every democratic one in Great Britain, has held the liberty of the American press up in triumphant exaltation over that of the press of Great Britain. How many vo­lumes might be filled up with instances of this fort! How many thousand times is the vain boast repeated in the course of each revolving sun! To refer to particular publications is like seek­ing for proofs of daylight or of darkness: but, there is one that I must refer to, because it so aptly answers my purpose. It is a letter of the arch sectarian PRIESTLEY, who, not content without companions in his fallen state, has spar­ed no pains to inveigle his countrymen hither. He tells the people of England, in this letter, sent there to be published, that "Here (in italicks to mark the contrast) ‘Here the press is free. Here truth is not a libel.’ This satanic letter contains many other assertions equally false, which I may one day or other expose; but, at present, I notice only what appertains to my sub­ject.

The poor Doctor was always a bold asserter; but, in the case before us, I must confess, a more scrupulous man might have been led into the adoption of a falshood. The peal has been so incessantly rung in our ears. We have been so bored with it in all seasons, at all hours, eating, drinking and sleeping time not excepted, that it required a degree of incredulity rarely to be met with to resist the temptation to belief. The asser­tion is, nevertheless false; and it is a falshood too, which the safety of every one (particularly a foreigner), who touches pen or types, requires to be clearly and fully exposed.

[Page 84] That TRUTH may be a libel in Great Britain, and that it cannot be a libel here, is generally be­lieved; and is thought to constitute the differ­ence in the laws of the two countries, on this head. But this is no more than a vulgar notion, taken up from ignorance, and propagated from vanity and envy. I defy any man to produce me a single law, or a single constitution (for, "thank God," as the Judge says, we have ma­ny); I defy him to cite me a clause or sentence, that says, or that leaves room to suppose, that truth may not be deemed a libel, here as well as in England. The United States, and the individual States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ver­mont, Maryland, North Carolina, and Kentuc­key, each of them say, that ‘the press ought to be free,’ in a short vague sentence, of which any lawyer of a common capacity would give as many different interpretations as there can be rung changes upon twelve bells, which are said to amount to some millions. Pennsylvania and Tennesee say the same, and more. They say, with the other States, and with the laws of Eng­land, that the press shall be free; and they add, that ‘in prosecutions for the publication of pa­pers, investigating the official conduct of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence.’ Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, have had the prudence to say no­thing at all about the matter; and, as to Rhode Island, its constitution is neither more nor less than a new edition of the Charter granted them by ‘the abundant grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion’ of King Charles II. Thus it [Page 85] stands, bound up with the other sixteen constitu­tions, without the addition or exclusion of a sin­gle word. And, all the other States, without one exception, have taken special care to bind down their rulers never to deprive them of the common law of England, but to preserve it inviolate to them and their children. Amidst all their va­ga [...]ies, when they were stark staring drunk with revolutionary triumph, they had the good sense, the saving grace, to cling fast round this old trunk of solid and substantial liberty. Long may they hold by it, and never suffer it to be chipped away by quibbling statutes and partial Judges!

Hence then, it happens, very luckily for me, that, if there be any State, in which the common law of England, respecting libels, is departed from, it is poor Pennsylvania. And, what is the mighty "blessing" she has had ‘vouchsafed unto her?’ Why, ‘in prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or where the matter pub­lished is proper for public information, the truth may be given in evidence.’ So that, you will please to observe, Messieurs authors and prin­ters, that, first, the person about whom you pub­lish must be an officer; and next, you must touch upon nothing but his official conduct. Precious privilege! It is a mere net to catch the unwary: it leaves not the least scope for censuring any public man whatsoever, but seems, on the con­trary, intended to shelter his faults and his crimes from the lash of the press. By declaring that the truth shall be admitted as evidence as to such publications only as touch his official conduct, his private character and conduct are held up as sacred and inviolable.

[Page 86]But, the Judge, the expositor of the constitu­tion, goes still further. He tells us, that the pub­lications, respecting the official conduct of offi­cers, must not only be true, but "candid" and "decent" also. This is a maxim laid down in his charge, and every one will agree, that he was ready to put it in practice. Comfortable writing and publishing it must be, thus penned up with vague and indefinite epithets! Truth may be de­fined and ascertained, but what publication is there, which, by some quirk or other, might not be represented as uncandid or indecent?—Yet, as if this left the press still too free. The Judge tells us, that such publications, must not only be decent, candid, and true, but, besides all this, they must "have an eye solely to the public good.— Here is a pretty latitude for quibble and contes­tation! Not only the fa [...]s are to be established, and the manner and stile approved of by the court, but even the motives of the writer are to be enquired into, and may be construed into a ground for punishing him!

One would now think that the officers of Penn­sylvania were safely enough fortified against the attacks of the press; but the Chief Justice was resolved to guard them at every point; and there­fore, after throwing up bastions in abundance and out-works upon out-works, he surrounds the whole with a line of contravalation, thus: ‘Where libels are printed against persons employ­ed in a public capacity, they receive an aggrava­tion, as they tend to scandali [...]e the government.’ Charming liberty of the press! Against men thus defended, what devil of a printer is there, who will ever dare to fire a single shot? Suppose, for [Page 87] instance, that a Judge were to be guilty of some most vile and infamous offence: suppose he were to thieve; one would think that a free press should take some little notice of it; but you must not do it, because thieving is not (or, at least, I am sure, it ought not to be) the official conduct of a Judge, and therefore the truth cannot be given in evidence; and because the libel would "receive an aggravation," as it would most cer­tainly "tend to scandalize the government."— Thus is the press of Pennsylvania nailed down; but if such a thing had happened in England, or in France previous to the revolution, the prin­ters would have blazoned it from one end of the empire, nay, from one end of the world to the other; and if they could have found a convey­ance to the Moon, thither it would have went. It is right to curb such "licentious" fellows. Their blabbing ought to be prevented; and for doing this give me not a mighty kingdom with standing armies and letters de cachet, but give me a little sang "Representative Democracy," armed with the power of b [...]nding them over at disc [...]etion, and inflicting on them the punishment of a murderer.

As to the latter provision of the clause above quoted, that the truths published must be proper for public information, it is far worse than nothing; for, what is proper for public information is no libel according to the common law, and there­fore no truth, nor any evidence whatsoever, is necessary to justify its publication, in the eye of that law; but, according to the new maxim, what is very proper for public information may be a libel, if the truth of every word of it cannot be established.

[Page 88]I think I have now satisfied the reader, that, in point of law, the American press has gained nothing over that of Great Britain. But, the Chief Justice, as if he really intended to aid my undertaking, and to do away every doubt on the subject, took good care to tell the Grand Jury, that, with respect to libels, the common law was confirmed and established by the Constitution itself. Where then is the advantage derived from the new order of things? If the constitution of Penn­sylvania, which is, according to the modern ap­plication of the word, the free-est in America; if this constitution has done no more than confirm and establish the common law of England, with respect to the liberty of the press, how can any man have the impudence to boast of that liberty being greater here than it is in England, where that same common law still exists in all its pleni­tude and purity, and is administered by men the most learned, independent and righteous in the world?

Thus far then, the liberty of the press, is, in the eye the law, the same in both countries; but this does not prove, that there exist no circumstances in America, peculiar to it, which render the exer­cise of this liberty unsafe, and of course restrains its operations. It is not only the principles pro­fessed in a country, that we are to look to, but also the practice of that country. The thing cal­led the constitution of France, for example, says that the free use of the press is a right sacred and inviolable; but this does not prevent the tyrants from seizing the printers by scores, and trans­porting them without a trial and without a hear­ing.

[Page 89]The press has been, and still is, restrained in this country, 1st, by the notion, which has been, for evident motives, inculcated by artful men, that no private character ought to be publickly censured. 2nd, by the very dangerous privilege, which foreign agents possess, in having a choice of governments, under which to bring their pro­secutions. And, 3rd, by the terror, necessarily excited in every printer, by the disgraceful and cruel punishment, to which he is liable.

As to the first of these restraints, nothing can give us a better idea of the extent to which it is carried, than the bold assertions contained in the Chief Judge's Charge. He tells us, that though a publication may not reflect any moral turpi­tude on the party, it may yet be libelious, if it thwarts the said party's desire of appearing agree­able in life. This is a very comfortable doctrine to every scoundrel, and particularly to every whore, for you will not find one of either description, who does not desire to appear agreeable in life. The reasonableness of this doctrine his Honour supports by telling us, that if any man does wrong, recourse may be had to the courts of justice, and that there can be no necessity, nor reason, for ap­peals to the people in news-papers or pamphlets.

Thus, you see, if his Honour shuts up the press, he has the goodness to open his court to us. But, if I were to see one officer of government go stag­gering drunk through the street, on his return from a civic festival; or another from the same cause, reeling into his seat, must I hold my tongue, or go to law with them? If a swindler, a man of the basest character, the most treacherous and cor­rupt [Page 90] of mortals, were to propose himself as a candidate for a seat in the Legislature, must I say nothing about him; must I not throw out even a hint to the people to warn them of their danger? If a Judge, or any other awful character, were to be detected in shop-lifting, or in the commis­sion of any such base and infamous crime; or if a lady were to choose, now and then, to relieve her husband by retiring a few months to the arms of a friend, must I sew up my lips, and must my press be as tame and contented as the cuckold himself?

Such may, indeed, be the practice of the Ame­rican press; but is it that of the press of Great Britain. Only compare one of the London papers with an American paper, and you will soon see which comes from the free-est press. Is there a crime, is there a fault or a folly, which the edi­tors and print-sellers in London do not lash? They dive into every assembly and every house; they spare characters neither public nor private; neither the people, the gentry, the clergy, the nobility nor the royal family itself, is sheltered from their ridicule or their censure. Let any American but open PETER PINDAR's works and the LONDON MORNING CHRONICLE; then let him read Judge M'Kean's Charge, and blush at the boast that has been so often made about the liberty of the press.

I am far from approving of all, or of hardly any thing, contained in the works of Pindar and the Morning Chronicle: the Chronicle is the devoted tool of an infamous Jacobin faction, and the far greater part of Pindar's monotonous [Page 91] odes are an outrage on decency, on truth, and on every principle, moral and religious, by which a man of learning and talents ought to be direct­ed. But, because public censure and ridicule, when grounded on falshood, is unjustifiable, it by no means follows, that the press is to exercise no sort of censorship at all; that it is not to re­cord evil as well as righteous deeds; that it is not to check the follies and vices of the times; that it is not to exert its wholesome and mighty influence in society, but become the mere echo of the bench and the bar. No; this does not follow; yet, this is the practice of the American press.

Come to my office, reader, and look over (if you have patience) the leaden sheets that are hither dragged from every quarter of the coun­try. If they have one single shaft of satire, ex­cept it be on the old hackneyed subject of king-craft and priest-craft, I will suffer you to suffo­cate me by reading me their contents.—And what is the reason of this? Is it that this blessed ‘Representative Democracy, which, in great mercy, has been vouchsafed unto us,’ preserves us unsusceptible of folly or vice? Is it that we are all wise, moral, religious, and pure as the driven snow? Is it, my God! that we know of no such thing as drunkenness, adultery, swind­ling, corruption, or blasphemy? Or is it that we wish to keep these things hidden from the world?—If this could be done, and if silence would produce a reformation. I would willingly consent,—not to become as tame and insipid as my brethren, but to throw my press into the river. But, this is impossible; since whatever exists, is, [Page 92] and must be, known; and since wickedness the longer it remains unchastised, the more inve­terate it becomes; since this is the case, the most rigid censorship in the press is absolutely neces­sary, to check, in time, that which, if suffered to pass unnoticed, will most certainly, sooner or later, end in general degradation and ruin.

Yet, this timely check; this salutary and cost­less chastisement, must remain a useless instru­ment in our hands, because, forsooth, the villain and the strumpet ‘desire to appear agreeable in life,’ and because an exposure of their turpi­tude will "stain the honour of their families!" For this cogent reason, the good and the bad, the upright statesman and the traitor, the man of integrity and the rogue, the virtuous matron and the whore, are all to be jumbled to-gether, and the world is to take us in the lump, or nor at all.

But, may it please your Honour, this will not do. We know well, that the world is very ill­natured, and that, when it judges in the lump, it very seldom looks at the best side. Men of reputation, therefore, do not approve of this jumbling work. They wish to be distinguished from those that have none. This can be done only by the detecting of vice, and exposing it to public censure; and I beg your Honour's leave to add one concluding observation of my own, which is this; that I never yet know a single per­son, man or woman, extremely anxious to restrain the liberty of the press, in this respect, who had not very sufficient reasons for so doing.

The next restraint on the freedom of the Ame­rican press, is, the very alarming privilege, which [Page 93] foreign agents possess, in having a choice of go­vernments, under which to bring their prosecu­tions.

I have already, in the former part of this pamphlet, said how the press, in various parts of the country, has been kept in slavery by the unpunished violences of the domineering French faction; and, in the relation of the treatment I have met with, I have clearly proved what every printer, of any independence of spirit has to ex­pect from another quarter. This situation of things, however, has been produced by a combi­nation of singular circumstances, and it may pro­bably wear away as those circumstances change. But, the evil, of which I have now to complain, is of a nature not to be worn away by the hand of time alone. It is built on law and constitution, or, at least, it operates as if it were, and admits of no remedy, except by some positive act of a convention or the legislature.

It was hoped (though, it must be confessed, with very little reason), that America, when se­parated from Great Britain, would never more be affected by the quarrels of European nations. PAINE told the people, that they would have no­thing to do but grow rich, while other nations should be at war. "Our commerce," says he, ‘will always secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe.’ This, by woeful experience, we find to have been like all the rest of shallow­headed Paine's predictions. But this is not the worst. Not only does America feel the pressure of European wars, in a degree equal to that felt by the people of Great Britain at this moment; [Page 94] but she is cursed with a foreign faction in her bosom, by which she is continually curbed, har­rassed, injured, insulted, and betrayed.

The politics of the country are become so connected, so interwoven, with the politics of other nations, France in particular, that they are never spoken of in any other than a relative light. I verily believe, and indeed I am cer­tain, that, as to numbers, men are more equally divided, at this time, between the Federal govern­ment and the French, than they were in the year 1778, between the Congress and the King of England.

Nor does this pernicious division stop here. The State governments have their sides. One State is called a Federal State and another an Antifederal State: and it is notorious, that the politics of the persons, who administer these [...] ­altern governments, are generally fixed and uniform on one side or the other.

In such a state of things, only think of the danger of allowing foreign ministers and agents to choose the government, under which to bring their prosecutions! Possessing this dreadful pri­vilege, will not every foreign agent take good care to institute his prosecutions under that go­vernment, to which the party prosecuted has, by his politics, rendered himself obnoxious? And, where this can be done, what sort of chance, I pray, is there for a man who meddles with the press, and who happens to be situated in a State, where he must of necessity be obnoxious to one of the two governments, under which he lives?

[Page 95]My own case is a striking exemplification of the danger of this privilege. Yrujo the Spaniard applied first to the Federal Government to pro­secute me, and was informed that it would be done in the Federal courts. But, this he remon­strated against, and requested that it might be done in the courts of Pennsylvania; in which courts M'Kean is Chief Judge.—Now, why this request? Why prefer one jurisdiction to another? The courts are held at the same place, and near­ly at the same time. The Judges of the Federal court are men famous for their learning and their integrity; and, I am sure, ordering the trial in this court ought to have been looked upon as a mark of respect to the Spanish King. How, then, are we to account for this extraordinary request?

Leaving the reader to account for it in his own way, I shall tell him that the request was refused; and that, then, a new prosecution was set on foot under the government of Pennsylva­nia. The matter contained in the above bill of Indictment was hunted out; and, let it be well remembered, that every pretended libel con­tained in this bill, was published before I was bound over on the first complaint. In possession of this fact, the reader will be able to guess what the hopes of the prosecutor were founded on.

The matter in the bill of indictment, if libel­lous, was surely so before I was bound over the first time. How comes it then, that it was not included in the first complaint? This puzzled the Grand Jury. The thing appeared so unna­tural to them, that they sent for the two Attorneys [Page 96] General to explain the mystery; when it was found, that they had taken care, in drawing their indictments, to steer clear of each other; in do­ing which I, by-the-bye, do not mean to hint, that either of these gentlemen did any more than his duty.

Thus was seen the singular phenomenon of a printer prosecuted by two governments, at one and the same time, for different parts of one and the same offence! And this is American liberty of the press!

Did Englishmen ever hear of any thing of this kind before? No; they have one Government, one law, and one constitution for all. In their country, neither foreigner nor native, plaintiff nor defendant, has a choice of jurisdictions, tri­bunals, or judges. Where the offence is com­mitted, there must it be tried. They have no clashing of governments of opposite politics, un­der which every printer is in hourly danger, from the intrigues of foreign agents, and is obliged to tack and shift, like a polacre with contending winds between Sylla and Charibdis. No; in England, all is fair and free. The path is sim­ple: the law is one and the same, and is equal in its operations in every place and towards all parties. It is founded in wisdom and in justice, and is administered with candour, impartiality, and mercy.

The third restraint on the liberty of the Ame­rican press, and the last which I shall notice, at this time is, the fear which must be naturally ex­cited in every writer and printer, by the disgrace­ful and cruel punishment, to which he is continu­ally exposed.

[Page 97]After all that we have heard and seen about the mildness and humanity of the American laws; after all the cant of the tender-hearted Brissot; after all the silly enlogiums on the prisons of Philadelphia, spread abroad in pamphlets, speech­es, and paragraphs; and after all the sarcastic and acrimonious invective which the American press is continually pouring out against the san­guinary code of Great Britain: bored with all this, I say, even to surfeiting, my present com­plaint must appear very extraordinary. Let it. All that I have to do, is to prove it well founded.

The liberty of doing any thing, is greater or less, in proportion to the punishment that the law awards for it. I am, therefore, far from pre­tending that the Americans do not, in some re­spects, possess more liberty than the English. They are in less danger, when they steal, rob, forge, coin, and murder; for, these crimes are here punished with fine, jail imprisonment, im­prisonment at hard labour, or solitary confinement; whereas, in England, they are punished with death. But, let those, who have reason, boast of this sort of liberty. It is not what I want. I only contend for liberty to write and to print.

This liberty is a right, sanctioned by law, as far as a certain line, all beyond which is called libelling. This line reaches, as I have clearly proved, just as far in America as it does in Eng­land, and no farther. All that we have to do then is to see, which country inflicts punishments the least severe on transgressors; for, in that country the press must be most free.

[Page 98]By only casting our eyes on the Chief Judge's Charge, we shall perceive, that the punishments are ten fold more severe in America than in England. In England, a transgressor of the laws of the press, or, in other words, a libeller, is pu­nishable by fine, by imprisonment in jail, by standing in the pillory; or by any two, or all three, of them. But, what is his punishment in America? Why, in the first place, fine and jail imprisonment, as in England, and to these may be added, imprisonment at hard labour, and even solitary confinement in a dungeon, at the discretion of the court; and all this too in a country, where the prosecutor may have a choice of courts!

As far as relates to fines and jail imprisonment, the code of the two countries is the same; but, instead of the momentary shame of the pillory, the American libeller, whether writer or printer, is liable to the lasting pain and disgrace of hard labour, and to the more horrid punishment of the dungeon. Standing in the pillory, which is the worst an English libeller can undergo, is over in a few hours. The sufferer is then placed in jail, where he is as free as a detention of his per­son will admit of. He can see, hear, read and converse. He is at case; can be visited by his friends; nay, Callender (the run-away Scotch­man) boasts, that his associates even sold their libels in Newgate. What is this punishment compared to continual hard labour? And what is hard labour, or any thing else, compared to being thrown into a cell, and cut off, not only from friends and family, but from every human being?

[Page 99]But, we must not drop the subject here. Pu­nishments, as to their influence in society, and consequently as to their restraint on the press, must be considered relatively; for, what may be a very light punishment in one country, may be a very heavy, and even a very cruel one, in another. In England, for instance, robbery, forgery, mur­der, &c. are punished with death: in America these crimes are punished with har [...] labour, or solitary confinement. So that, to inflict these lat­ter punishments on a libeller here, is exactly as cruel as it would be to inflict death on him in England.

What were the motives of the rulers, who lessened the punishment for murder, and other hor­rid crimes, while they augmented the punishment for libelling, I must leave those to determine, who boast so much about the liberty of their press; but, this I will undertake to say, that it is most excellently well calculated to restrain, intimi­date, and over awe, every one who has any thing to do with writing and printing. What man will ever dare to communicate his thoughts to the public, while it is probable, or even possible, that his writing will procure him a place in that "temple of humanity," as it has been called, the Philadelphia prison; where, dressed in a jail uniform, penned up amongst run-away thieving negro slaves; amongst robbers, forgers, sodom­ites, and murderers; where, in short, amongst convicts of every colour and of every crime, he is employed in the polite art of pounding hemp, with the infinite satisfaction of being exhibited to travelling philanthropists as a ‘living monu­ment of American mildness and humanity?’— [Page 100] And, if this be too much for a man of reputation and talents to bear, how shall he dare to brave the horrors of a cell; to be secluded from friends, parents, wife, children, and all that ren­ders life worth possessing; to be barred up for months, or for years, like a condemned malefac­tor; and this too at the discretion of a court, chosen, perhaps, by his prosecutor?

Did Englishmen . . . . . . . . . . . but, why do I pursue in the odious comparison?—Did even Frenchmen ever feel a restraint like this?—The Bastile!—it was bad enough, to be sure; but, a writer confined there, had, at least, the consola­tion of knowing, that he was distinguished from felons and murderers. Though far too severely punished, he was not covered with everlasting disgrace and infamy. Literature, though the abuse of it was cruelly chastised, was not degra­ded, was not rendered at once hateful and des­picable, as it is by the indiscriminating code of Pennsylvania.

Yet, notwithstanding all we have seen, the Chief Judge has the modesty to tell the Grand Jury, from the bench, that ‘the criminal law of this State is so pregnant with justice, so agree­able to reason, so full of equity and clemency, that even those who suffer by it, cannot charge it with rigour’!!!—This was too much. He might, at any rate, have spared us the mortifica­tion of listening to this. But, it is the fashion. Almost every public harrangue has some such vaunting conclusion. It may be good policy, to be sure, as it tends, to keep the people here in excellent humour, while it excites envy in those [Page 101] of ther nations, makes them discontented whit their lot, and invites them to cultivate the deserts of America; but then, the greatest care imagin­able should be taken, not to lay the iron finger on such men as are not formed for passive suf­france, and particularly if they are Britons; for they, above all others, will not whisper their curses to the winds: they will turn their eyes towards their native land: they will compare what they have lost with what they have gained; nor will all the terrors of hard labour and a Phi­ladelphia dungeon, ever, I trust, deter them from proclaiming the account to the world.

I have now accomplished my object. I have exposed the conduct of my enemies, and I have amply proved, that the press is more free in Great Britain than it is in America. As to the motives by which I have been actuated, though I frankly confess, that had I not been injured, had I not been singled out as an object of legal vengeance, no part of this pamphlet would ever have been written or thought of; yet, I am far from wishing to throw an odium on the people of these States in general, and to represent them as a tame degenerate race of mortals. On the contrary, I know that a very great majority of them have felt, and expressed, the utmost indig­nation at the treatment I have received. The decision of the Grand Jury alone, considering the charge that was made to them, is sufficient to prove, that the spirit of true liberty is yet alive on this side the Atlantic. That decision, and the joy which it excited amongst all the respectable inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia, are fresh in every one's memory, and will, I am sure, be [Page 102] for ever rivetted in mine. Let it not be suppo­sed, however, that I say this with the base motive of procuring or preserving patronage, either pub­lic or private. I stand in need of none. My good honest parents taught me the labours of the field, and, with these, they taught me independ­ence of mind. It has pleased God to bless me with health, and with limbs to gain my bread; and, while I am able to do this by the spade or the plough, I will never seek for wealth nor for ease, by fawning for popular favour, or by bu­rying my injuries in silent submission.