In 1731 Sir Philip Yorke, attorney-general, solemnly declared that an editor is "_not to publish any thing reflecting on the character and reputation and administration of his Majesty or his Ministers_;" "if he breaks that law, or exceeds that liberty of the press he is to _be punished for it_." Where did he get his law--in the third year of Edward I., in A.D. 1275! But that statute of the Dark Ages was held good law in 1731; and it seems to be thought good law in 1855! And the attorney who affirmed the atrocious principle, soon became Chief Justice, a "consummate judge," a Peer, Lord Hardwicke, and Lord Chancellor![92] Lord Mansfield had not a much higher opinion of the liberty of the press; indeed, in all libel cases, he assumed it was exclusively the function of the judges to determine whether the words published contained malicious or seditious matter, the jury were only to find the fact of publication.[93] Thus the party in power with their Loughboroughs, their Thurlows, their Jeffreys, their Scroggs--shall I add also American names--are the exclusive judges as to what shall be published relating to the party in power--their Loughboroughs, their Thurlows, their Jeffreys and their Scroggs, or their analogous American names! It was the free press of England--Elizabeth invoked it--which drove back the "invincible Armada;" this which stayed the tide of Papal despotism; this which dyked the tyranny of Louis XIV. out from Holland. Aye, it was this which the Stuarts, with their host of attendants, sought to break down and annihilate for ever;[94] which Thurlow and Mansfield so formidably attacked, and which now in America--but the American aspect of the matter must not now be looked in the face. [Footnote 92: 17 St. Tr. 674; 5 Campbell, 57; Hildreth's Despotism, 199.] [Footnote 93: 20 St. Tr. 900. But see 28 St. Tr. 595, and 16 Parl. Hist. 1211.] [Footnote 94: For the frequency of trials for words spoken in Charles II.'s reign of terror, see the extracts from Narcissus Luttrel's Brief Historical Relation, 10 St. Tr. 125.] * * * * * But spite of all these impediments in the way of liberty, the voice of humanity could not be forever silenced. Now and then a virtuous and high-minded judge appeared in office--like Hale or Holt, Camden or Erskine. Even in the worst times there were noble men who lifted up their voices. Let me select two examples from men not famous, but whose names, borne by other persons, are still familiar to this court. In 1627 Sir Robert Phillips, member for Somersetshire, in his place in Parliament, thus spoke against the advance of despotism:[95]-- [Footnote 95: 1 Rushworth, 502.]