no one was allowed to publish or print on paper, without their consent. It also soon became subject to the censorship of the religion of England, especially on matters pertaining to Christianity.
After this the press passed into the hands of the crown, by mutual consent upon the part of the religious and secular powers who were the censors. There was a certain license to be paid for the publication of papers now, and only certain people were allowed to publish them. Those who did so unlawfully, were punishable by law. If caught, the presses were levied upon by an officer, who was known as "press messenger." In 1693 the censorship of the English press ceased to exist, and there has been perfect freedom of the press, with certain restrictions on publishers of libelous or criminal matter. That this freedom, in all respects, is the same as in the United States, the author is unprepared to assert.
The freedom of the press in our country is guaranteed by the Constitution, with a few restrictions, as every one conversant with our laws is aware. Article I of the amended Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." The restrictions that are imposed upon persons, matter, etc., in the various phases of law, such as libel, copyright, and rights of a private character, are presumably imposed for the public good.
It is safe for us to say that in our own country the press has unlimited freedom. The restrictions put upon it do not limit its freedom, since they are imposed principally to suppress censure and abuse, and, as Lord Wynford says: "Where vituperation begins, the liberty of the press ends."
It goes without saying, that since the press is allowed perfect freedom in its expression of opinion, and since the Constitution licenses it by asserting that no law shall abridge
