Craftsman, Jan. 30. No. 239.
Maintains the liberty of the Press, in opposition to those who argue for the necessity of some restraint, which, if granted, he says, might be made use of to destroy all newspapers whatsoever, except the Gazette.
After repeating most of the points in debate, he defends his Hague letter (for which the government thought fit to call him to an account) in as much as there was nothing in it asserted, but only supposed; and adds, he has as much right to reason upon suppositions as Mr. Osborne; and to censure the conduct of ministers, as he hath to approve it; for unless the right is reciprocal, the liberty of the press is no liberty at all.
As to what Mr. Walsingham had allow’d, that we have a right to reason upon political affairs, tho’ not to lay down false facts; he replies, that he has asserted no falsehoods, and only exercised the natural right of every Free Briton, to offer his opinion on affairs.
Concludes with saying, that if he should be call’d upon to defend himself in a court of justice he must submit to the law; and abide the judgment of his country. See p. 298.
London Journal. Jan. 2. No. 596. against the Craftsman, No. 233.
The Craftsman having in his said Journal advanced several arguments for the disbanding the Army and repealing the Riot Act, the Author of the London Journal undertakes here to confute them. He admits that a Government ought to have no more power than is necessary for the safety and protection, the preservation and happiness of the people, but adds that the laws alone, without a power to execute, and provide against all sudden emergencies, and possible dangers, will not answer these ends. Asserts that the possibility of powers being abused is not a sufficient reason to strip the Government of such a security, or to lodge the safety of the King in the affections of the people, which are variable and easily seduced, and (as the Craftsman allows) very precarious, when he makes a doubt whether his present Majesty enjoys them. Not only Armies and Riot Acts, but even the very law itself, by ill designing men may be used for our destruction, which were made for our safety. But must we part with the law, because we may suffer by the law? Every nation round us is arm’d, and must we alone stand naked and defenceless? If the liberties of many nations have been destroy’d by standing armies, the liberties of many have been preserv’d by them. Mentions the Revolution as an instance, and believes the Pr. of Orange would not have so easily succeeded, had the army been as true to the King as they were to their country. That the disbanding the army after the peace of Riswick embolden’d the French King to set his Grandson on the Throne of Spain, and declare the Pretender, which involv’d us in a ten years war: That nothing more intimidated the Ministry in the last four years of Q. Anne’s reign, than the honesty and bravery of the gentlemen of the army.
As to the riot act, he says that power is necessary to prevent riots and tumults, and to disperse the people when so assembled. To this purpose a law is made which tells them the consequences of it; a proper officer gives them warning; and if after this they will stay and be hang’d, ’tis their own fault.
He allows, that shou’d a Justice of the peace assume the liberty of reading the proclamation where a member of parliament is chusing, he ought to be hang’d. He don’t see how this act can injure us any other way; for while the constitution is preserv’d, and our liberties taken care of by the government, the people can’t be unjustly hurt by it.
The remaining part of his discourse is spent in setting forth the unreasonableness of repealing this act, from the behaviour of the authors of the Craftsman and their abettors, who by their conduct in exciting uneasiness in the people, have made it necessary to continue it in force.