Of The Liberty Of The Press / Hume, David

   [TABLE NOT SHOWN]

   [TABLE NOT SHOWN]

   Copyright 1995, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu). See end note for
   details on copyright and editing conventions. This is a working draft;
   please report errors.[1]

   Editor's note: "Of the Liberty of the Press" appeared in 1741 in
   Volume one of Hume's Essays, Moral and Political. The text file here
   is based on the 1777 edition of Hume's Essays and Treatises on Several
   Subjects. Spelling and punctuation have not been modernized.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   Of the Liberty of the Press

           NOTHING is more apt to surprize a foreigner, than the extreme
           liberty, which we enjoy in this country, of communicating
           whatever we please to the public, and of openly censuring
           every measure, entered into by the king or his ministers. If
           the administration resolve upon war, it is affirmed, that,
           either wilfully or ignorantly, they mistake the interests of
           the nation, and that peace, in the present situation of
           affairs, is infinitely preferable. If the passion of the
           ministers lie towards peace, our political writers breathe
           nothing but war and devastation, and represent to pacific
           conduct of the government as mean and pusillanimous. As this
           liberty is not indulged in any other government, either
           republican or monarchical; in HOLLAND and VENICE, more than in
           FRANCE or SPAIN; it may very naturally give occasion to a
           question, How it happens that GREAT BRITAIN alone enjoys this
           peculiar privilege?

           The reason, why the laws indulge us in such a liberty seems to
           be derived from our mixed form of government, which is neither
           wholly monarchical, nor wholly republican. It will be found,
           if I mistake not, a true observation in politics, that the two
           extremes in government, liberty and slavery, commonly approach
           nearest to each other; and that, as you depart from the
           extremes, and mix a little of monarchy with liberty, the
           government becomes always the more free; and on the other
           hand, when you mix a little of liberty with monarchy, the yoke
           becomes always the more grievous and intolerable. In a
           government, such as that of FRANCE, which is absolute, and
           where law, custom, and religion concur, all of them, to make
           the people fully satisfied with their condition, the monarch
           cannot entertain any jealousy against his subjects, and
           therefore is apt to indulge them in great liberties both of
           speech and action. IN a government altogether republican, such
           as that of HOLLAND, where there is not magistrate so eminent
           as to give jealousy to the state, there is no danger in
           intrusting the magistrates with large discretionary powers;
           and though many advantages result from such powers, in
           preserving peace and order, yet they lay a considerable
           restraint on men's actions, and make every private citizen pay
           a great respect to the government. Thus it seems evident, that
           the two extremes of absolute monarchy and of a republic,
           approach near to each other in some material circumstances. In
           the first, the magistrate has no jealousy of the people: in
           the second, the people have none of the magistrate: Which want
           of jealousy begets a mutual confidence and trust in both
           cases, and produces a species of liberty in monarchies, and of
           arbitrary power in republics.

           To justify the other part of the foregoing observation, that,
           in every government, the means are most wide of each other,
           and that the mixtures of monarchy and liberty render the yoke
           either more easy or more grievous; I must take notice of a
           remark in TACITUS with regard to the ROMANS under the
           emperors, that they neither could bear total slavery nor total
           liberty, Nec totam sevitutem, nec totam libertatem pati
           possunt. This remark a celebrated poet has translated and
           applied to the ENGLISH, in his lively description of queen ELIZABETH's
           policy and government,

           Et fit aimer son joug a 'l Anglois indompte,

           Qui ne peut ni servir, ni vivre en liberte.

           According to these remarks, we are to consider the ROMAN
           government under the emperors as a mixture of despotism and
           liberty, where the despotism prevailed; and the ENGLISH
           government as a mixture of the same kind, where the liberty
           predominates. The consequences are conformable to the
           foregoing observation; and such as may be expected from those
           mixed forms of government, which beget a mutual watchfulness
           and jealousy. The ROMAN emperors were, many of them, the most
           frightful tyrants that ever disgraced human nature; and it is
           evident, that their cruelty was chiefly excited by their
           jealousy, and by their observing that all the great men of ROME
           bore with impatience the dominion of a family, which, but a
           little before, was no wise superior to their own. On the other
           hand, as the republican part of the government prevails in ENGLAND,
           though with a great mixture of monarchy, it is obliged, for
           its own preservation, to maintain a watchful jealousy over the
           magistrates, to remove all discretionary powers, and to secure
           every one's life and fortune by general and inflexible laws.
           No action must be deemed a crime but what the law has plainly
           determined to be such: No crime must be imputed to a man but
           from a legal proof before his judges; and even these judges
           must be his fellow-subjects, who are obliged, by their own
           interest, to have a watchful eye over the encroachments and
           violence of the ministers. From these causes, it proceeds,
           that there is as much liberty, and even, perhaps,
           licentiousness in GREAT BRITAIN, as there were formerly
           slavery and tyranny in ROME.

           These principles account for the great liberty of the press in
           these kingdoms, beyond what is indulged in any other
           government. It is apprehended, that arbitrary power would
           steal in upon us, were we not careful to prevent its progress,
           and were there not an easy method of conveying the alarm from
           one end of the kingdom to the other. The spirit of the people
           must frequently be rouzed, in order to curb the ambition of
           the court; and the dread of rouzing this spirit must be
           employed to prevent that ambition. Nothing so effectual to
           this purpose as the liberty of the press, by which all the
           learning, wit, and genius of the nation may be employed on the
           side of freedom, and every one be animated to its defence. As
           long, therefore, as the republican part of our government can
           maintain itself against the monarchical, it will naturally be
           careful to keep the press open, as of importance to its own
           preservation.

           It must however be allowed, that the unbounded liberty of the
           press, though it be difficult, perhaps impossible, to propose
           a suitable remedy for it, is one of the evils, attending those
           mixt forms of government.

   [TABLE NOT SHOWN]

           [1][COPYRIGHT: (c) 1995, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu), all
           rights reserved. Unaltered copies of this computer text file
           may be freely distribute for personal and classroom use.
           Alterations to this file are permitted only for purposes of
           computer printouts, although altered computer text files may
           not circulate. Except to cover nominal distribution costs,
           this file cannot be sold without written permission from the
           copyright holder. When quoting from this text, please use the
           following citation: The Writings of David Hume, ed. James
           Fieser (Internet Release, 1995).

           EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS: Original pagination is contained within
           curly brackets (e.g., {1}). Spelling and punctuation have not
           been modernized. Printer's errors have been corrected without
           note. Bracketed comments within the end notes are the
           editor's. This is a working draft. Please report errors to
           James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu).]

   [TABLE NOT SHOWN]
   © 1996