The Origins of a Free Press in Prerevolutionary ... - Web Publishing

243
judges were also powerful members of the governor’s council and were not
accustomed to being publicly criticized. For William Byrd III, one of the judges in
question, these accusations were too much and he brought libel charges against the
printers and the alleged author of one of the letters. The Grand Jury refused the
indictment, for “Not a True Bill.” 52 “Philanthropos” concluded that the press in
Virginia had now become free in that it published the details of this controversy,
despite the fact “that a tyrannical arbitrary power should show itself, by traducing,
and threatening with prosecution, patriot spirits” who would attempt to reveal the
truth about this case. 53 This letter suggests that even contemporaries saw liberty of
the press advancing, both with the issues presented in the public prints regarding
this case, and with the jury rejecting the charges. Truth as a defense against
accusations of libel had begun to establish itself in Virginia. The Zenger case may
not have been an actual legal precedent in the colonies, but it marked an important
turning point. As Levy noted, it raised a new standard that many colonial
legislatures chose to follow. 54 Furthermore, as historian Alison Olson suggested,
bringing attention to printed political attacks became folly: “After the trial, any
politician was a fool to take a satirist to court. The Zenger case lay at the crossroads
of literature and law.” 55 In Virginia following Zenger, these examples demonstrate
52 Maryland Gazette (Annapolis: Jonas Green, Oct. 30, 1766), 2, quoting an issue of Rind’s
Virginia Gazette, no longer extant. The issue for which Bolling was charged is also no longer
extant. See also Greene, “ ‘Virtus et Libertas’,” 98-100, and John M. Hemphill, II, “The Origin,
Development, and Influence of the Virginia Gazette, 1736-1780” (Williamsburg: From the
research files, Virginia Gazette folder, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg [date
unknown]), 11-13.
53 “Philanthropos,” Virginia Gazette (Purdie & Dixon, Aug. 22, 1766), 1. Although the
charge was reported in the newspapers to be libel, not seditious libel, as a government official,
Judge William Byrd III could well have accused all of seditious libel, and the involvement of a
grand jury in considering the indictments suggests that it was a criminal case, not civil. Seditious
libel in British law was criminal, while libel was civil.
54 Levy, Emergence of a Free Press, 129-130.
55 Olson, “Zenger Case Revisited,” 224.