The Judicial History of individual Liberty.
395
THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. VI.
BY VAN VECHTEN VEEDER, Of the New York Bar. THIS period (1688-1789) witnessed the rise after the Revolution was that ui Tutchin, in and development of the press as an organ 1704 (14 St. Tr. 1905). Tutchin was a char acteristic specimen of the low class party of public opinion. On May 3, 1695, the Li scribbler of the time. He had fallen into censing Act expired, and since that day there Jeffrey's clutches after Monmouth's Rebel has been no censorship of the press in Eng lion, and had been sentenced to imprison land. Within a fortnight the first real news ment for seven years, together with a whip paper made its appearance, and the history ping each year through every market-town of this great factor in civilization had begun. in Dorsetshire—which involved a whipping But no sooner had the press escaped the every fortnight during the term of his im clutches of the licenser than it compromised prisonment. He managed to escape this its character and imperiled its freedom by punishment, however, by catching smallpox, becoming the instrument of party rancor. and upon his recovery he was able to pur With a construction of the law of chase a pardon. Among many subsequent libel inherited from the Star Chamber adventures he is said to have called on Jef it was an easy matter for the domi freys, when, after the Revolution, the latter nant party to suppress criticism and was confined in the Tower, and to have im to crush its critics. The former was accom pressed upon him some obvious reflections plished by means of stamp taxes, and the on the irony of fate. He was finally beaten latter by prosecutions for criminal libel. The so severely for one of his scurrilous libels law was rigorously enforced under William that he died of his injuries. III. and Anne, but the long supremacy of Walpole brought a period of general tolera Tutchin was brought to trial before Lord tion. Walpole was indifferent to public at Chief Justice Holt in 1704 for a libel in The tack and openly avowed his contempt for the Obscrvator. He had said, in substance, that the ministry was corrupt and the navy ineffi public press. Although the mass of political writers might well be described as "a herd cient. For this statement, which would now of wretches whom neither information can pass unnoticed, he was tried and found guilty enlighten nor affluence elevate," the press of seditious libel, in order that (to use the was, nevertheless, slowly gaining in influ language of the prosecuting attorney, Sir ence. During the period from about 1760 to Thomas Powis) "men might be warned of 1792 it rose above party and justified its the difference between liberty and licentious claim to represent public opinion. This ness." He was ably defended by Sir James period, beginning with the activities of John Mountague,1 who succeeded in arresting Wilkes and ending with the excesses of the 1 Mountague's opening was very graceful: "I can French Revolution, is one of the most impor hardly sav T am counsel with Mr. Tutchin, because I have never seen him but upon recording his appearance tant eras in the history of the liberty of the in open court; and he has not thought fit to send us press. It was then that the nation, excluded any instructions till this morning, when we were just going down to Westminster. But I do suppose this from representation in a servile and corrupt remissness in his temper does proceed from the innoHouse of Commons, found utterance in the . cency of the accusation against him, and he has a mind to let the world see how easy it is to make his defense, public press. since he has pitched upon me for his advocate, and given me so little time to prepare myself for it." The first notable trial for seditious libel
