constitution. All the different sects enjoy equal prvileges and equal rights natural, civil, and political. The only restriction which operates equally on all is that no one in the exercise of his liberty, shall infringe the liberty of others, do any thing to disturb their rights, or to the injury of society. All causes of jealousy, civil and political, being removed, moral emulation operates without envy, and the different sects live in peace and charity with each other. In elections by the people, and in appointments to office, no enquiry is made what are the religious tenets, but what is the fitness, what the talents and integrity of the candidate.

To violate the rights of others, to disturb the peace and good order of society under pretence of conscience, or of religious duty are acts equally criminal as though perpetrated under any pretence whatever.-They are equally prohibited by the laws of nature; they are prohibited by the Supreme Being, the Author of religion, and the object of all religious worship, and justly punishable by the laws of society. To punish the abuse, instead of being a restraint upon liberty, is in fact, its greatest surety.

The right of propagating a religious opinion stands on the same ground. The propagation of an opinion which does not result in any acts injurious to society, cannot with justice, be subjected to restraint by human laws. But this right may be abused and made the instrument of the most flagitious crimes, destructive of the order, peace, happiness, and of the very being of civil society. Such were the opinions formerly held by the Roman Catholic Church. It was sedulously inculcated as an essential article of their religious creed, that no faith was to be kept with heretics, dissenters from the doctrines of that Church-that it was meritorious in the sight of Heaven to assassinate heretical princes and rulers, and to subvert.by any means, every government which rejected its dogmas, and declined its authority. This was not intended to be a mere speculative doctrine and to rest in theory.-It was reduced to practice by the ministers and agents of that Church, to the terror of one half of the christian world. Such was the violation of the safe conduct given by the emperor of Germany to Jerome of Prague, who, with his associates was sentenced to the flames.

Such the assassination of Henry IV. of France, by the fanatic Monk Ravaillac, for granting toleration to his protestant subjects. Such the gun powder plot in England in the reign of James I.— a plot for blowing up at once, the king and the whole English parliament. From the same source proceeded the numerous plots and rebellions devised principally by the Roman Catholics in England, down to the middle of the last century, by which, the government and liberties of the nation were exposed to perpetual danger, and sometimes brought to the brink of ruin. So intimately had they connected these pernicious opinions with the most important articles of their religious creed, such their faith in the priest of their order, so submissive were they found to the mandates of the sovereign Pontiff, that no penalties could provide an effectual restraint upon men, who were persuaded they merited the favor of Heaven by the commission of the most horrid crimes.

It became therefore necessary, as far as possible, to prevent the propagation of a religion so inseparably blended with such pernicious opinions. For this end, persons professing the Romish religion, were forbidden to keep or teach any school under pain of perpetual imprisonment. They were forbidden to hear or to say mass, that is, to attend worship according to the Romish ritual. No person might send another abroad to be educated in the Roman Catholic religion, or contribute to his expenses, while abroad for that purpose, under numerous and severe penalties. Popish priests and bishops were forbidden to celebrate mass, or to exercise any of their functions in England, except in the house of a foreign ambassador, under penalty of perpetual imprisonment. To the same end were imposed many disabilities, and other severe penalties, but generally not of a sanguinary character. Without entering into the question, whether laws less severe might not have been equally effectual, I believe every unprejudiced person will see and acknowledge that the restraints imposed by these laws, were no more inconsistent with true religious liberty, than the laws of society for the prevention of theft, robbery, and murder, are inconsistent with civil liberty. It is due here to observe that if the Pope and the Romish Church have not formally disavowed those pernicious

opinions, they have of late years been generally discarded by the professors of that religion,-that the Roman Catholics of Great Britain have universally renounced them as gross heresies, in consequence of which those severe laws have been repealed and they have been restored to all their rights, civil, political, and religious, as fully as the other sects dissenting from the established national Church had been by the repeal of the test and other laws.

We come now to the second division of our subject, the liberty of political opinion, which is defined to be "the right and liberty of every citizen to discuss and propagate his opinion on every subject relating to the government, institutions, and laws, the measures pursued by its ministers, and functionaries, and to act agreeable to that opinion, with this only condition, that in so acting he violate not the rights of others, or injure the commmunity, of which he is a member." It is unnecessary here to add any thing on the right of private opinion. The right of discussing and propagating political opinions requires further examination, as it comprehends the liberty of speech and of the press-subjects of great importance in a free government. By the liberty of the speech and of the press, is to be understood what is substantially expressed in the foregoing definition, the right of every citizen freely to express, either in conversation, or by means of the press, his opinions in relation to the constitution of the government, its administration, and laws, the conduct, abilities, and integrity of the officers and functionaries, and the tendency, whether good or bad, of the measures pursued, to an arbitrary government nothing can be more hostile than liberty of speech and of the press. Where that liberty prevails in any considerable degree, nothing is more efficient in the diffusion of knowledge among the people. They of course become enlightened, and by a free interchange of sentiments and opinions, learn what rights they are entitled to claim as intelligent and social beings, and feel more keenly the arbitrary exactions and oppressive acts of the government. They soon discover that the whole physical strength of the community is in their hands and that nothing is wanting but a union of sentiments and action, and a prudent and steady direction of

that strength so set them free by crushing their oppressors.* Very different is the case under free institutions where the rulers are elected by the free suffrages of the people, and bold their power in trust, under constant accountability to their constituents for the manner in which they exercise the trust. The government have no support, no energy, but what depends on the sentiment of the people; and the more they are enlightened, to understand their rights and the true end of civil institutions, the firmer and more rational will be their support of the government, if administered on just principles, and the more forcibly will the rulers feel their accountability. To this nothing can more contribute, than well conducted Journals and periodicals, and it becomes the interest of the government, which is no other than the interest of the whole community, to provide for a safe, speedy, and cheap distribution of them through every part of the State. Under these considerations, it is the duty, as it is the interest of the government, to cherish and to guard with every proper caution the true liberty of the press. But the same rule holds here as in other cases. No one is allowed to exercise this right so as to injure the right of another. It becomes necessary therefore to distinguish between the just liberty, and the

*The following incident will shew the influence of a free press in disseminating liberal principles, and among what classes it principally operates.

In the charter granted by Louis XVIII, to the French nation in 1814, which was called the constitution of the government, was an article for securing in some degree the liberty of the press,-subject, however, to many restrictions. In consequence many liberal Journals were circulated through the kingdom, but not without many vexations practised by the court on the editors. Some five or six years now past, an article was published in one of the ultra loyal Journals, in which the editor complains bitterly of the want of support through the loss of subscribers—and that whenever a loyal subscriber died, the son sent him an obituary for publication and the next day subscribed for a liberal Journal. It will be recollected that the revolution of July 1830 was brought about by the indignation excited throughout France by the arrêt of Charles X., for suppressing the liberal Journals and seizing the presses; which terminated in a few days in the deposition of Charles, the banishment of himself and family from France, and the election of the duke of Orleans to the throne.

licentiousness of the press. The right of character is a personal right highly regarded by the laws of every civilized country, If one person by slander injure the character of another, by words spoken, which is simply denominated defamation, or by writing, or printing, which is denominated a libel, an action is given to the party injured, against the slanderer, to recover damages according to the nature and extent of the injury. The publication of a libel from the extent to which it may readily be circulated, the permanent nature of the injury, and its tendency to disturb the peace of society, has been made a criminal offence and liable to penalties more or less severe. In civil prosecutions for this injury, the person bringing the action, is considered to have put his character in issue. If the defendant can prove the matter charged as defamatory or libellous to be true, it is deemed a good defence; the plaintiff is found not to possess a character to which the law attaches the right of protection. A distinction has been made in most countries, and certainly is in England, between a civil and criminal prosecution for a libel.-In the former the truth is allowed to be a good defence, in the latter, not; and on an indictment for some species of libel, it has been considered a sound maxim of law, that the greater the truth, the greater the offence.

In these United States, generally, I believe I may say universally, the law is different. The truth is admitted to be a good defence as well in a criminal as a civil prosecution for a libel. This is perfectly consonant to the nature of our institutions and in accordance with the general interest. It is, in a political point of view, the interest of all to obtain a full knowledge of the true character of those who may be candidates for the offices of trust and confidence in the state, the appointments to which depend mediately or immediately on the suffrages of the people. This principle also serves to establish a well marked and a prominent line of distinction between the liberty and the licentiousness of the press;-the distinction between truth and falsehood. It does not, however, extend to every case of licentiousness; for the facts published

*Scandalum Magnatum.-Defamation of the great men of the realm.