Kootut teokset | Samlade skrifter | Selected Works
Writing: Additional report on the freedom of printing

Additional report on the freedom of printing

Previous Section:

Next Section:

Font size: A A A A


Viewing Options:

Additional Report of the Third Committee of the Grand Joint Committee of the Honourable Estates of the Realm on the Freedom of Printing, Submitted at the Diet in Stockholm on 21 April 1766

Since the honourable Grand Joint Committee has on 7 April last deigned to approve both the Committee’s Report of 18 December 1765 and the attached draft of an ordinance and has moreover decided that the Committee should likewise communicate its thoughts concerning censorship and the printing houses and book trade in general before the honourable Grand Joint Committee submits the aforementioned approved Report to the honourable Estates of the Realm, the Committee has in view thereof addressed itself to these points.

The first, or how censorship should henceforth be conducted, has thus become the initial subject of deliberation by the Committee and has all the more required its most careful examination as the Committee has found censorship to be the principal issue in what has been referred to it for elaboration.[748v]

The Committee has to that end sought to ascertain the reasons why a censor librorum has in times past been regarded as necessary, among which were the following:

First, that the censor ought to read through the manuscripts intended for printing and examine whether they contained anything that might be contrary to religion, the political constitution and good customs and in consequence thereof notify the Royal Board of Chancery whether they were to be released for printing or be banned, as it was otherwise feared that harmful publications could be disseminated among the general public; second, to inspect the books and documents arriving from abroad, as to whether there were any among them that could be regarded as harmful to the state or religion, which he had to notify for proscription to the Royal Board of Chancery; third, to exercise supervision over the libraries in the kingdom and in particular the Royal Library here in Stockholm.

In addition, fourth, the censor has stated that he has been assigned the duty of allocating to authors useful subjects for elaboration and in so doing to select gifted writers and to encourage them to perform the work thoroughly, by which it was thought that a number of works of public utility could be published; while it was also the duty of the censor librorum to most carefully ensure homogeneity everywhere in the actual orthography or manner of spelling in order to make the Swedish language clear and attractive.

But the Committee has furthermore considered whether some other more convenient solution, in closer accord with the security of a free nation, might not be adopted, whereby the same purpose could be achieved, more enlightenment be disseminated in the nation, the preconditions for literature be eased and promoted and, most essentially, the rights and liberties of the nation itself and of each citizen be best safeguarded.

In this respect the Committee has in particular taken into consideration whether one ought not in the case of publishing texts, as in any other business, focus primarily on the author and let each individual retain responsibility for his work, although in such a manner that in this, no less than in all other cases, he be guaranteed a lawful trial befitting a Swede.

It cannot in general be denied that, under the strict censorship of past times, some things were published that could have been expressly described as contrary to religion, the state and good customs, as it was precisely the censor in conjunction with the Royal Board of Chancery who had the sole right to accept or reject the works submitted, as they saw fit, and to act in relation to authors as both prosecutors and judges, which has caused a number of such works to be subsequently labelled as either permissible or harmful, though with the difference that at the Royal Board of Chancery the reasons for the ban have gradually been somewhat more fully recorded in its minutes, whereas the censor, simply by withholding his signature, could achieve exactly the same result. But that this was oftentimes founded on nothing more than a preference or whim can never be disputed when one considers that the censor has prohibited the printing of writings that the Royal Board of Chancery has regarded as innocuous and, vice versa, the Board has prevented ones that the censor has released for printing, while on occasion a work that has been published with the sanction of them both has nonetheless subsequently been confiscated as injurious either by the censor or by the Board of Chancery. Then there are manuscripts that at one point are suppressed yet at another are allowed to be published. Some have been approved with the imprimatur of the censor and yet, when already at the printer’s, have nevertheless been banned despite the fact that the truths expressed could not throughout all this have been mutable and neither the laws nor the system of government have undergone any changes.

When the Committee actually looks into the issue itself, it appears, furthermore, that scarcely any work can be so carefully worded that it cannot be said to give rise to some offence or other against the system of government or to point to individuals and thus be labelled as subversive, not useful and dangerous, which are the usual terms with which both the censors and the Royal Board of Chancery have stifled many works, and that no law can be formulated so clearly that it may not in a hundred ways be distorted and misinterpreted when it is in the hands of a prosecutor who is also the judge in the case.

Laws and their observance are indeed often subject to arbitrariness among human beings, but to entrust the light of the nation, the most precious jewel of liberty, to the supervision of a single person cannot but be hazardous. Therefore, neither the advantage of human beings over innocent animals, namely their ability to communicate thoughts to one another, nor the civic right to enlighten the nation seem to be appropriately protected under censorship.

Next, as regards the censor’s examination of foreign books, the Committee must state that no censors have so far conducted any foreign correspondence by which they would have been able to obtain the necessary information about the content of various foreign books, nor is it in any way possible, when they are inspected in the warehouse or are unpacked in the bookshops in the presence of the censor, to read through every copy of them, which has also led to a number of licentious works in foreign languages arriving from abroad, which have at times, as an offence against morals, been put on sale before the censor was aware of it and sometimes not been banned by the censor and the Royal Board of Chancery until they were actually on sale, a hazard that under normal circumstances can hardly be avoided. To that must be added that a censor librorum who resides in Stockholm cannot possibly prevent the importation of harmful books in the other staple towns in the kingdom and across other borders of the country to towns where there are no consistories, universities and grammar schools, and they are thus sometimes examined by relatively inexperienced inspectors.

Concerning the censor’s supervision of the country’s libraries, it is also quite impracticable for him to intervene in some way or other in any except the Royal Library here in Stockholm, to which the censors have paid the least attention, however, but which in addition does not lack the necessary staff to assist those who wish to use it for some purpose.

The Committee, furthermore, has no knowledge as to whether any subjects have been distributed for elaboration by the censor to authors chosen for their wit and talent, how successful that has been, and what benefit the public has derived from it. But the Committee wishes to declare that learned and astute writers in every branch of scholarship will never be lacking in the Swedish nation as long as literature is not kept in fetters by one or a few persons, and provided that the book trade is facilitated so that it can become profitable, the authors can gain some corresponding advantages, and outstanding talents can see their names immortalized. But the limited scope for ideas and reasoning, together with wretchedness and contempt, make learned and zealous men rarities among us, turning their best efforts into mediocre works, the nation becomes unwell and lethargic and it is pointless for a censor to arouse it from its torpor until the cause of its sickness is removed.

Truths exercise a persuasive power over the human heart if they are simply allowed to irradiate it freely and without constraint, but obscurantism and prejudices leave it unmoved.

Finally, as regards the regulation of orthography and the Swedish language by the censor, the Committee would point out, first, that such matters have never so far been undertaken by a censor, of which all Swedish publications that have been published bear incontestable witness; and, in truth, guardianship over the manner of writing and spelling the native language of this country would appear to be almost too great a task for a single censor in the entire country, as other learned men have not yet been able to agree upon this, and ought rather to be left to a scientific or literary academy, as the spelling could then eventually achieve an appropriate consistency. Apart from that, such supervision is inherently impossible, as a censor does not have the time to carefully scrutinize every character in the manuscripts received from all over the country and still less to involve himself in proofreading, without which, however, this aim cannot possibly be achieved.

In regard to all this, therefore, the Committee, for its part, cannot find that what was intended by the establishment of censorship has been fully achieved thereby or that its continued existence is any longer necessary.

The Committee has not, however, left it at that but has further turned its attention to the harmful consequences that ordinary censorship involves for literature as well as for the country and for liberty, consequences that the Committee views as all the more distressing as it is able to assert with assurance that the reasons for the present poor condition of the country are principally due to obscurantism and secrecy and by no means to a lack of authors who have aspired to enlighten the nation. For it is an incontrovertible truth that, had printing been free, those evils could never have occurred that have reduced our country to insolvency and the causes of which have cost the honourable Estates of the Realm so much time to identify and such great effort to rectify during the present Diet.

As differences of opinion and party are almost inescapable in free states, and the censor therefore cannot but be more favourably inclined towards one of the parties, it is no less certain that he must also show greater partiality towards the publication of those works that support its opinions than those in which the faults of the party with which he sides are laid before the nation.

As long, therefore, as a censor has the right to inspect and examine all works that are to be printed in the country, he will always be able, either by bans or by making changes in the texts of authors, or even by merely delaying those that do not conform to his taste, to stifle many useful truths.

This will always be all the more dangerous to a state should it happen that the government, in some objective or other, has an interest contrary to that of the nation.

That such things have happened and may therefore happen again, of that the history of all free states provides the clearest evidence, and it is well known that when the English government wished to suppress the liberty of the nation, it decided to lay the foundations for that by appointing a censor and therefore worked assiduously to that end, nor would it have failed had not some enlightened and resolute patriots laid the consequences of it before Parliament and thereby blocked such a perilous attempt.

The renowned Mabbott1 in England, who for a time occupied the office of censor, demonstrates this expressly when, on resigning his office before Parliament, he said that he by no means did so merely because he regarded his occupation as superfluous, as he was fully aware that the office of censor was not the only one in England that was regarded as of great importance but was nonetheless useless, but chiefly because he found it to be harmful both to authors and to the nation itself and that, in view thereof, the honour and authority that he possessed in that regard to act as judge of the thoughts and common sense of the entire nation could not flatter or persuade him to retain it any longer to the injury of his nation.

Nor has it escaped the attention of the Committee that the more honourable the position of censor was made and the freer the access he had to the records and most confidential activities of the members of government and the officials, the more concerned would they be in such a case to win him over to their side by whatever means, while he, on the other hand, would have all the less difficulty in making common cause with them as, precisely by so doing, he could most securely protect himself from prosecution by authors who could achieve nothing at all against such a united force. To believe, under such circumstances and when the interests of these two authorities may so easily coincide, that the liberty of the nation is well protected merely by the personal qualities and impartiality of the censor cannot but be hazardous at a time when legitimate complaints are so openly made against both senior and junior officials.

In this regard the Committee has indeed conceived that the security of subjects in a free nation ought to be founded on good and explicit laws but has, on the other hand, been persuaded by the records of every epoch that the execution of the laws depends chiefly on there being a relative equality or reciprocity between those who command and those who obey, for should the former possess a power many times greater than the latter, the execution would likewise always be to the advantage of the more powerful and the misfortune of the weaker.

Laws are nothing but words and sentences and never in themselves affect anyone; by a superior power they may therefore either be interpreted arbitrarily or left unimplemented or else, without any risk, be utterly transformed.

Although the Committee has not actually identified anything of that kind in Sweden, on such an important matter relating to the enlightenment and liberty of the nation it has not wished to conceal such great apprehensions from the honourable Grand Joint Committee when a law is to be enacted for the future.

Equally unfortunate consequences are viewed by the Committee as inevitable if breaches of the projected ordinance are to be examined and judged by a single designated court, such as the Royal Board of Chancery has hitherto been, and if authors are immediately summoned before higher courts without enjoying beneficia juris et processus2 in this as in all other cases.

The Committee has therefore set aside all previously issued statutes, orders and ordinances on this matter that could give rise to any confusion and misinterpretation and has in addition drafted the ordinance concerning what should be regarded as lawful to print or not in such a short and simple form that it should be easy not only for an author to bring his work into conformity with it but even more so for magistrates in the ordinary lower courts in the country to base verdicts on it, as they will be the ones pronouncing judgment according to several more obscure laws in complicated cases, such concerning the welfare, life and property of citizens.

The Committee has furthermore considered what security the nation has derived or may in future derive against the dissemination of injurious works among the public from having a censor and how his responsibility might be defined.

It is an undeniable truth that both the censor and the Royal Board of Chancery have banned and sequestrated certain printed works that had been approved by the censor without the censor’s being held to account for having approved them or in the slightest way compensating the author or the printer for their distress, and however much the law might increase the penalty for a censor in such an event, it is no less obvious that an author or printer will in vain seek redress from him if he enjoys the full support of the government and the officials.

Should the censor, on the other hand, whether through inattention or partiality, exemption from which is rarely the lot of mortals, allow writings that affront certain individuals to appear and the authors are allowed to evade responsibility by hiding behind the censor, not only will they be more audacious but the victim will have to sue the censor, which in the previously conjectured case, after a long and uncertain procedure, is likely to provide him with such limited redress that it will scarcely serve his purpose, whereas, according to the Committee’s draft, the author will, under this ordinance, be accused by the affronted person in the appropriate court and will be held accountable just as in all other criminal cases.

Among the factors that in a remarkable manner promote enlightenment and literature in the nation, one is undoubtedly that authors are rewarded for their toil, while the prices of books nonetheless do not rise excessively, so that the book trade is consequently carried on with greater advantage both at home and abroad. In that regard, everything that unnecessarily increases the cost of any work also immediately inhibits the printing and sale of books, but as publishers or authors have been obliged, for the supervision and approval of their publications, to compensate the censor separately for his trouble, over and above the salary that he receives from the state, such things have not been able to occur without a significant burden being imposed on literature, nor can such things be prevented if the office of censor is retained, as long as the authors, in order to have their writings printed, are obliged in some respect or other to seek the favour of the censor, an obstacle to the Swedish book trade that the Committee has also believed it should remedy.

Nor, finally, can the Committee omit mention of the fact that belles-lettres itself and the cultivation of the Swedish language are not inconsiderably impeded when a single person, even the most literary one, has the right of oversight over all works that are published, whereby they are all in the main, as it were, cast from the same mould and the divergent gifts of thought and expression used by authors to persuade and captivate each in their own different way, competing with each other in freedom, are not a little restricted, and all the more so the more closely the censor adjusts them to his taste. It would otherwise be difficult to show any sufficient reason why Swedish belles-lettres down to the present time has resembled an infant rather than a fully developed body, and it has not yet been determined whether its growth in recent years may not be attributed to some leniency in the censorship rather than to the scrutiny that it has undergone thereby. It is at least certain that the freer printing has been in a nation, the more ingenious are the works that have been published there, to which the English ones in particular bear incontrovertible witness.

So many and, in its view, such very important reasons have inevitably and completely persuaded the Committee of the harmfulness of regular censorship in a free nation and that, whatever regulations concerning it may be adopted in future, neither learning, belles-lettres nor liberty itself can be well protected under censorship. In consideration of which the Committee, in all confidence, most humbly recommends to the honourable Grand Joint Committee that censorship or the office of censor, being useless, unnecessary and harmful, should henceforward cease entirely and the censor’s salary be discontinued as soon as the present censor regius departs, either by promotion or death, thus saving the budget this expense.

In the first article of this ordinance, which has won the approval of the honourable Grand Joint Committee, a fine adapted to the nature of each offence is already imposed on those who publish or cause to be printed any harmful publications, which, in the event that a censor has permitted that by virtue of his imprimatur, ought in fairness to be claimed not from the author or publisher but from the censor.

The advantages of a freedom of writing and printing of that nature will, judging from what has already been stated, be all the more evident as precisely in that and in no other way the liberty of the nation may be preserved and the love of our propitious system of government be increased, as the experience of all ages bears witness to the fact that a free people has never thrown itself into the arms of autocracy unless it has been denied the opportunity to complain of its distress, and obscurantism and repression have brought it to despair. Only then will it be possible for Swedes, under the shelter of the law, to inform each other of the genuine interests of the country and for many prejudices to be banished that had, as it were, become rooted under the censorship and had undermined a great deal of the legislation issued by the Sovereign Power. Then good sense and talents could escape from their inappropriate reins and gain a wider sphere in which to strengthen each other; harmful and licentious writings could then with greater liability, and without simultaneously stifling the good, be restrained by the penalty imposed; innocence would then be protected by the law in every court and the spirit of vindictiveness find it less easy to exercise its influence throughout the country than in a single court, and the reciprocity that the Committee has outlined between plaintiffs and defendants would be most effective in associating with that law an unswerving observance.

The Committee is aware that this still arouses much opposition in our nation but has not on that account felt able to conceal the true context of the issue, as it is itself so utterly convinced of its utility and necessity.

The freedom of the nation is always proportional to the freedom of printing it possesses, so that neither can exist without the other. To the extent that a nation is free, its freedom of printing will be the same, but on the contrary, where printing is muzzled by some form of guardianship, it is an infallible sign that the nation is fettered, as one observes that even under autocratic governments where freedom of writing and of speech are tolerated, subjects enjoy more of their civic rights than in certain states where thoughts and reason have been curbed by restricting printing, although they are otherwise reputed to be free.

Nor has the Committee, in examining this subject, failed to take into account the main objections that may be made against the discontinuance of censorship, such as that it is unlikely that it can be implemented without the greatest hazard if a nation that has hitherto been subject to a censor should suddenly be freed from all supervision while not yet being sufficiently experienced and careful to correctly use such a freedom, which could soon be transformed into arbitrariness, or else that authors and printers might be deterred from publishing useful works by their liability for such works. But the Committee regards neither as a risk in this case, as the penalty laid down in an explicit ordinance must make the authors more careful than before, when they depended merely on the censor’s signature without any enacted laws, while on the other hand the honourable Estates of the Realm themselves during this Diet, by publishing a number of tracts on a variety of subjects, have prepared the way for them to state without apprehension what they believe themselves entitled to in defence of truth.

To retain the office of censor because the nation is still unfamiliar and inexperienced is the same as to maintain the reason why it has hitherto been so and to prevent it from improving in the future. And albeit that a few small irregularities may occur in the works that are published after the abolition of censorship, it remains a fact that it has not been possible to avoid them hitherto, though they could not so easily be touched when under the protection of a prominent name. But when a greater purpose, which is the liberty of the nation, is to be achieved by the freedom of printing, it is not the time, in order to avoid small inconveniences that can never be prevented among human beings, to fail in a matter of such urgent concern for the future existence of the country and of liberty because it may appear dangerous to the honourable Estates of the Realm to leave the country and liberty subject to further hazards, when the transfer of censorship from the Royal Board of Chancery to the censor alone would be merely to transfer power from a collective authority into the hands of a single individual, and the effect and observance that one ought then to expect of even the best of laws may easily be perceived by anyone.

If, on the other hand, in order to forestall such inconveniences and in order that a censor should not be allowed to approve of and suppress whatever writings and works he wished, one were to insist that the authority of the censor should not be so extensive that he could positively prevent anything from being printed but could merely provide the authors with good advice and indeed have the right to expressly approve or disapprove of something in a text yet not have the power to prevent it from being printed if the author insists on it, in which case the printing would also be the responsibility of the author but not that of the censor, the Committee would observe in that regard that even such supervision would be not only futile but harmful.

It would be futile because an author who dares to print at his own risk that of which the censor has disapproved and thus puts himself at risk can then rather more easily answer at once for that which the censor had regarded as inoffensive. If the censor were to have no power to ban anything from being printed, he could not be held responsible for what he advises either, so that he might then all the more easily be moved by whims, and his rejection would impose a certain pressure on the judge to support his wishes against a defenceless author. And although good advice should never be despised and sensible authors are unlikely ever to ignore it, whether it is given by the person who has held the office of censor or someone else, there is still no reason why one single person in the entire country should become everyone else’s adviser, or why other learned and honourable men should not equally enjoy the same right. There is thus greater reason to fear more harmful consequences from according such a right to a censor, for then learned and literary men might thereby be made to refrain from having works printed rather than accept advice and instructions from one to whom they regarded themselves as superior in learning and experience, in which respect the Committee is all the less likely to be mistaken as it is able with certainty to report that several learned men have already refused to submit their works to the scrutiny of the censor and have thus, though in breach of the censorship laws, had several editions of them printed here in Stockholm without his signature but could easily, by the renewal of this constraint, be deterred from honouring and benefiting their fatherland. Literature would then also, in the same way as before, be encumbered with a fee to the censor which could not be prevented by any prohibition; obstructions and delays for that which might, to some degree, be contrary either to the censor’s interests or his opinions would, moreover, infallibly become the fate of many works; and, finally, if the offences of authors were to be adjudicated in some particular court that had the same outlook and interest as the censor, or they could in some way mutually influence each other, freedom of writing would survive in name only.

The Committee therefore believes that it is all the more urgent for our beloved fatherland to use the present moment for the abolition of censorship and the defence of liberty, for which Providence itself has in an excellent manner recently prepared the way, as it might otherwise soon happen that the nation will be enveloped in a new fog when that which could now easily be achieved will at another time be quite impossible to carry out. Year and date as above.

On behalf of the Third Committee of the Grand Joint Committee of the Estates of the Realm.

Ut in protocollo,3

Christoffer von Kochen. Anders H. Forssenius.

Leonard de la Rose. Johan Andersson

  1. The renowned Mabbott in England: Gilbert Mabbott or Mabbot (1622–c.1670), newsletter writer and parliamentary licenser of newsbooks and pamphlets in England. Mabbott was a professional newsletter writer in the turbulent times of revolution, regicide and the interregnum of the 1640s and 1650s. In March 1645 he became deputy licenser but was dismissed, presumably for political reasons, only two years later. In September 1647 he was reinstated as licenser but he resigned or was dismissed in May 1649. The office of licenser was, however, not abolished, and Mabbott was succeeded by John Rushworth. Later on in life, Mabbott held the office of manager for licences of wine and strong waters in Ireland. In 1768, the pamphlet Maboths ansökning hos Parlamentet i England att få nedlägga sitt censorsämbete, såsom skadeligt för sanning och nationen was published in Swedish, dealing with Gilbert Mabbott’s presumed petition to the English Parliament to abolish the office of licenser, as it was harmful both to truth and to the nation. It has often been presumed, that the publisher was Chydenius, but this is not probable, since Anders Nordencrantz had already in 1761 published the same text as part of one of his books. The pamphlet is stated to be translated from English, or Danish according to other sources, but no original can be found in Mabbott’s name in English or Danish bibliographies. The original text by Mabbott, if there ever was one, is therefore presumed to be lost or part of a larger whole, and has not been found.
  2. beneficua juris et processus: the right to be put on trial in order to defend oneself from accusations
  3. Ut in protocollo: according to the minutes

Original documents

Section

Previous Section:

Next Section:

Places:

Names:

Biblical references:

Subjects: