The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-10-28
.Tbe Gnqnirfr.
RICHMOND, ESD OCTOBER.

Liberty eftbe Pre6.--Mr. Paine, in the Mort
efay under the Ggnature of COMMON.
SENSE, which we have ventured to afcribe TO
his pen, has undertaken to &C Fate the ORIGIN
of this familiar expreffion, and to /" thew
eobat hmeans." He afferts that I" the term,
liberty oftke prs/j, arofe from FACT; the a.
BOLTON of the Office of Imprimateur," & that it
virtually means no more than to be &c free from
(al) prior reqrAint." Mr.. Paine's 4e6nif;on an
pears to us to be thoroughly incorrect, and his
argumenfi exceedingly hottie to the proper IL
ber.y of the prefs.
Firit as to his de6nition.-It feems TO us con-
trary to the true genius of any language to de-
tine the prsjent meaning of any word or pbrae,
by Its original acceptation. Innumerabe in
frances may be adduced of progreflive va
ration in the meaning of words. Take for
example the word, federaift Mr.. Madifon
was once federalif according to the original
acceptation of the word but will any man
now prefume to call him federalift, accord
Ing to its preient reeeive6 meaning?
The etymology of a word is not always a cor
rect mode of determining its exiting meaning. II
may in mott cafes be an approximation towards
! the truth; bnt it fails in 70 many, that in no
cafe can it be relied upon with unerring GER
tainty.
The mott correct mode is to appeal to the
.a'''dr u,e OF tue word, as II is generally ufed
IN the mott intelligent books and conversations
But there is no term or no exprcilion, of
which the chances of variation are 70 ftrikingIy
! numerous, as that of the liberty of the pref.
ii mutt vary in different countries, with the
freedom or deipotifm of their political ntitu-
tons. 1t mutt vary at different times i'm the
fame country, as the rights of the people be-
come better underftood, or the power of the
government becomes more extenfive.
Hence 1t is, that under the huetuating &C.
vernment of England, the Jury have fometimes
eXerclied the right of judging both of the law
and the fact of libel and at other times, they
have been confined to the mere Fac of publifh-
| ing {: thus enlarging the privileges of the pub
| i'iher and the confequent Liberty of the Prefs,
| IN the one cafe, and abridging them in the o.
| ther.
Hence too it happens, that under the fufpi-
cious defpotiim of ENGLAND, the truth is no iuf
LITIGATION Of libel, nor an abatement of the
punllhment and hence the famous paradox of
Lord Mansfield, that the greater the truth, the
greater the libel; while in the NOT enIgh,en-
ed OF the American States, the truth is the
fafeit defence of innocence, both in private
ProtecutIonsand in public prefentments.
| Thefe difinGtions are fufficient to lbow that
the liberty of the prefs may be eflcntially diff
ierent IN two cafes, even though there exits in
both no precious rejgrabt. Where tbiJ free
dom exits, the true point of difference mutt
coniltt, the different degrees of exemption in
which arc enjoyed, from [aljsq1ent resraiuts.
It isthe peculiar nrernsatipe cf .Lc ,,-,.s VI
tbs country, that there are fewer fublequent
reitraIDts impoied upon it, than i'm any country
in the world which enjoys its blefiings. The
liheilerls not onlyentitled to ipeedy & impartial
trial by ajury, who are privileged to Judge of
the law as well as OF the fact, but he is in all
private projections as well as in fome public
indictments, entitled to give the truth for his
qualification. Whatever difference exits as to
the latter privilege, limply arifes from the
difference in the law of libel which exits in the
different ftates of this country.
! In iuch free country as our own, there :;ore
the liberty OF the prefs not only "means'' A
freedom from all precious reRraint," but a
freedom from many of the f4b/equent reftraints,
which eIrcumicrhe its operation in the mott
/ enlightened countries of +, rope Free as the
/ Engiih prefs is no - and ever has been Gue. the
revolution of sS8, we have never conGdered
the preis Of England as worthy Of the deni6
ed name, which we Rave abprobriated to our
own. Can MIR. Paine think that the Englifh
| preiS enjoys, what be would denominate, its
liberty! Did he deem the preis of England
| tree, when bis celebrated {" Rights of Man %
was fubietted to the RIGGS of judicial profe.
cution ?
! AS to the argument, which Mr. Paine feems
! TO iHter from this dejfuition, or which MIGHT
| DC inferred by an ingenious logician from bis
| oofe mode of eSpretfion, it is as feeble as the
definition is fafe. Mr.. Paine would certainty
ihrink from any definition which expofed him
to the abfurdty of laying, that the Hberfy oftbe
pre/J was efficiently great, 70 long as it was
free from any prior rfgraiut.
! u this be not Mr. Paines opinion it is so he
! lamenled that he should have employed 4 pbra-
feology 70 loofe as would have authorized the
| inference. 1t is to be amcnted, thar ;,
mind 10 powerful and commanding as that of
Mr.. Paine's, mind that gives law to 70 MANY
others, fhould not always deliver its opinions
IN the mott explicit and luminous manner.
| But If this be really Mr.. Paine's opinion, II
would be almoit unneceflary to multiply anv
| arguments aganR it. II would be almoft f,f
hcIent refutation, that it is the very fame def.
milton and one of the very arguments which
was employed by the Fedcraiifts in their
vnd'cation ofthe Edition act. The good fnfe
ut the Proph of this country, will for ever reie6l
| fucb empty fophifms.
! They know, fays the celebrated Mackintofh.
that " the offence of political libel is Of
a very peculiar nature, and differing in the noG
! important particulars from all other crime. In
all other cafes, the mott fevere execution of
! law can only fpread terror among the guilty.
but in political libeIs il infprcs even the limo.
cent with fear. This friking popularity ariC.
IS from the fame circumstances which make Il
impoffibie to define the limits of libel and in.
/ DOCcnt di!CufllOu-- make ~ ;r,,,c0;Lt. -.