re considered as fresh securities to their independence;
but now that they saw their own weapons converted to instruments of
tyranny and oppression against themselves, they would oppose them with
all their might, and, however they may fail in the first efforts, would
finally prevail, and assuredly bring things back to their first
principles. They also said that the practice of letting the constituents
know the parliamentary proceedings of their representatives was founded
upon the truest principles of the Constitution; and that even the
publishing of supposed speeches was not a novel practice, and if
precedent was a justification, could be traced to no less an authority
than Lord Clarendon."[128]

"In the early years of the colonial era the right of free speech was not
always well guarded. There was frequent legislation, for example,
against 'seditious utterances,' a term which might mean almost anything.
In 1639 the Maryland assembly passed an act for 'determining enormous
offences,' among which were included 'scandalous or contemptuous words
or writings to the dishonor of the lord proprietarie or his lieutenant
generall for the time being, or any of the council.' By a North Carolina
act of 1715 seditious utterances against the government was made a
criminal offence, and in 1724 Joseph Castleton, for malicious language
against Governor Burrington and for other contemptuous remarks, was
sentenced by the general court to stand in the pillory for two hours and
on his knees to beg the governor's pardon. A New Jersey act of 1675
required that persons found guilty of resisting the authority of the
governor or councillors 'either in words or actions ... by speaking
contemptuously, reproachfully, or maliciously, of any of them,' should
be liable to fine, banishment, or corporal punishment at the discretion
of the court. In Massachusetts even during the eighteenth century the
right of free political discussion was denied by the House of
Representatives as well as by the royal governor, though often
unsuccessfully."[129]

"The general publication of parliamentary debates dates only from the
American Revolution, and even then it was still considered a technical
breach of privilege.

"The American colonies followed the practice of the parent country. Even
the laws were not at first published for general circulation, and it
seemed to be thought desirable by the magistrates to keep the people in
ignorance of the precise boundary