which had been once examined could not be reprinted without fresh license, and books brought from abroad were to be landed only in London, where they were carefully ex amined by licensers who were empowered to seize and destroy all such as were in their opinion seditious, schisimtical or offensive. Periodical searches of book sellers' shops and private houses were also authorized and enjoined. The Long Parliament abolished the Star Chamber but continued the censor ship; and the Commonwealth in its turn en deavored "to repress disorders in printing." by the most oppressive ordinances, empower ing messengers to break open doors and locks, by day or by night, in order to dis cover their authors, printers and publishers. Upon the Restoration, the Licensing act of 1662 again placed the entire control of print ing in the hands of the government, which was clothed with all the arbitrary powers theretofore exercised by the Star Chamber. These powers were applied with savage vindictiveness; authors, printers and publishers of obnoxious works were hung, mutilated, flogged, imprisoned or fined, according to the temper of the judges. When, in 1679, the Licensing act was suffered temporarily to expire, freedom of discussion was prompt ly suppressed by the declaration of the judges that it was a crime at common law to pub lish anything whatever concerning the gov ernment without the royal license. At the accession of James II., in 1685, the Licensing act was revived for seven years, and was thus in force at the Revolution. Under the Tudors and the Stuarts ob jectionable speaking and writing was gen erally punished under special acts as treason. This class of offenses was the special pro vince of the Star Chamber, and in this province this court attained its utmost in famy. But Parliament and the regular courts were equally prompt in suppressing discus sion. There could, of course, be no rational
discussion or development of freedom of speech while a censorship existed, and it will suffice to refer simply to the prominent public prosecutions prior to the Restoration: Udall (i St. Tr. 1271), 1590; Peacham (2 ib. 870), 1615; Floyd (4 ib. 1154); Hollis (2 ib. I022)f 1615. for traducing public justice; Wraynham (ib. 1059), 1618, for slandering Lord Bacon: Floyd (ib. 1154; Hollis (2 ib. 1022), by the Commons; Mainwaring (3 ib. 335), 1621, for advocating forced loans; Pine (ib. 359), 1628, for speaking contemptuously of the king; (Chambers (ib. 374), 1629, speak ing seditious words before the Privy Coun cil; Elliot and others (ib. 294) 1629, seditious speeches in Parliament; Prynne (ib. 562), 1633, for publishing the Hiltrio-Mastix; Fowles and others (ib. 586), 1633. traducing officers of State; Bastvvick and others (ib. 711), 1637, for publishing seditious and schismatical books; Lilburne (ib. 1315), 1637, for seditious publications; Harrison (ib. 13/01, 1638, for speaking ill of a judge. From the Restoration to the Revolution the leading cases are .Twyn, Brewster and others (6 St. Tr. 514), 1663; Keach (ib. 702), 1665; Jenkes (ib. 1190), 1676; Harris (7 St. Tr. 926). 1680; Smith (ib. 931), 1680; Carr (ib. mi), 1680; Cellier (ib. 1183), 1680; Thompson (8 ib. i); Barnardiston (9 ib. 1334), 1684; Baxter (11 ib. 493), 1685; Johnson (ib. 1339), 1686, and the case of the Seven Bishops (12 ib. 183). With the exception of the last named, these cases show no improvement over the methods of the Star Chamber. Harnardiston, for in stance, was fined £10,000 for writing to a friend some private letters giving some ac count of the rumors of the day. Barnardiston expressed opinions favorable to Rus sell and Sidney, and asserted, among other things, that "the Papists and high Tories are quite down in the mouth," and that "Sir George [Jeffreys] is grown very humble." Jeffreys himself tried the case, and instruct ed the jury that it was unnecessary to show
