In 1766 Sweden acquired the first government-sponsored freedom of the press anywhere in the world. This was no haphazard occurrence but the outcome of a decades-long political development. During this period, the so-called Age of Liberty, Sweden was a republic in all but name. In the 1719/20 Instrument of Government, political power was transferred from the monarch to the Council of the Realm, and from the late 1730s it was gradually conveyed to the Swedish Diet,
Riksdagen.
1 The best summary of the period in English is still M. Roberts, The Age of Liberty: Sweden 1719‒1772 (Cambridge, 1986). For recent perspectives on the political culture in the Scandinavian realms, see P. Ihalainen et al. (eds), Scandinavia in the Age of Revolution: Nordic Political Cultures, 1740–1820 (Farnham, 2011).Riksdagen, which convened at least every three years, was composed of the four estates of the Nobility, the Clergy, the Burghers and the Peasantry. In the late 1730s two opposing parties had emerged and operated within the Diet: the Hats and the Caps.
2 Hats favoured an aggressive foreign policy in alliance with France against Russia; Caps pulled closer to Great Britain and were less demonstrative towards Sweden’s former enemies. Over time, diverging opinions on domestic politics and economy increasingly came to the fore. Decisions were taken by a majority among the four estates, but the party divisions ran within all four of them. This called for intense negotiations and bargaining between the estates, and although consensus decision-making was still the ideal, political dissent on most matters was in reality the norm.
3 For the function of the parliamentary system, see M. F. Metcalf, ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty and Royal Reaction, 1719‒1809’, in H. Schück (ed.), The Riksdag: A History of the Swedish Parliament (New York, 1987). This called for a free and open debate, which had been unheard of in previous forms of government, but Swedish politicians soon found many similarities with the British parliamentary system, and it is obvious that this affected the discussion on freedom of the press.
Sweden had had an instituted system of pre-publication censorship since 1661, and an office of
censor librorum was established as part of the Chancellery in 1688. The first proposition to abolish this control system was presented to the Diet in 1727 by a young member of the Burgher estate, Anders Bachmansson (1697‒1772), better known under the name Nordencrantz, which he bore from 1743 when he received a knighthood. His motion opened with an historical exposé of the Swedish people, whose disgruntled and bitter character stretched back seven or eight hundred years. A major reason for their nasty temperament was the lack of enlightenment, for which Bachmansson Nordencrantz saw an efficient remedy: ‘A free and unhindered printing of books is therefore the artificial means and the noble light that is wholly indispensable for enlightening the natural intellect’.
4 ‘Et frit och oinskränkt Boktryckerij hyser fördenskull det artificielle medlet och det ädla liuset som till det naturliga förståndets uplysande helt oumgengeligt är’. Undated draft [March 1727] with many amendments in Swedish National Archives, Stockholm, Börstorpsamlingen, E3011: Anders Nordencrantz’ arkiv, koncept (tidiga). He saw the prevailing censorship as an anomaly under the new constitution, which had removed absolutism: ‘in spite of us now having become a free people, [liberty of the press] is still being withheld, so we still do not seem to know the full extent of our freedom’.
5 ‘Men sådant är, oaktat wi blifwit et frit folk, ännu likwäl betagit, så at wi tyckes ännu icke rätteligen kienna wår frihet’, ibid. Nordencrantz also adduced economic arguments: the restrained press forced Swedish youth to travel abroad, and the importation of books ruined the domestic printing industry. This first proposal was soon followed by another, which extended the arguments.
Nordencrantz’s motion on freedom of the press was well received by the Burghers. Many members gathered to read it and owing to its national importance the group that handled the proposition suggested that it should be printed and distributed to the other estates. Ironically, this request had to pass the censor, Johan Rosenadler, who turned to his superiors for advice on how to handle the matter. The answer was as expected: as long as an author avoids blasphemous, seditious and immoral subjects, he will have no trouble with the censor, thus Swedish writers already enjoy freedom of the press. Having thus received neither a yes nor a no, Nordencrantz sent a draft copy to the censor, but Rosenadler replied that he could not assess a yet unfinished manuscript. The matter was reiterated in the Chancellery some months later, but at that point Nordencrantz had refocused on other, more mundane tasks: a few weeks earlier the Chancellery had approved his application to become consul to Lisbon, which kept him away from domestic politics for more than a decade.
6 Borgarståndets riksdagsprotkoll från frihetstidens början, 3: 1726‒1727 (Stockholm, 1956), ed. N. Staf, pp. 199f, 3 March 1727. Swedish National Archives: ‘Hörsamt memorial’, no. 325, 11 March 1727, Borgarståndets arkiv 1726–1727, vol. 5, R 1207; Johan Rosenadler to the Chancellor of the Realm, n.d., (received 12 June 1727), Kanslikollegium E IV:17; Chancellery minutes, 9, 27 June, 11 November 1727, Kanslikollegium A IIa:39, fols 281, 289, 691f. G. Nilzén, ‘Anders Nordencrantz som konsul i Portugal: En studie över bitterhetens ideologiska följder’, Personhistorisk tidskrift, 83 (1987), 38‒49. See also Anders Burius, Ömhet om friheten: Studier i frihetstidens censurpolitik (Uppsala, 1984), pp. 231f.Although this first attempt vanished into obscurity, Nordencrantz returned to the subject in several writings and became one of the most persistent and important advocates for freedom of the press.
7 On Nordencrantz, see L. Magnusson, ‘Anders Nordencrantz’, in B. Wennberg and K. Örtenhed (eds), Press Freedom 250 Years: Freedom of the Press and Public Access to Official Documents in Sweden and Finland ‒ A Living Heritage from 1766 (Stockholm, 2018), pp. 77‒87. Nordencrantz had lived in London for eighteen months in the early 1720s, which had made a deep impression on his political views. In his first book he declared that ‘the greatest enemies of mankind are those who forbid freedom of speech’ and those who ‘with violence and threats suppress and persecute man’s only guide:
reason’.
8 ‘[…] menniskiosläktets största fiender, äro de, som förbiuda frihet i tal och swar, at med wåld och twång trycka och förfölja menniskians enda wägledare förnuftet’: A. Bachmansson (Nordencrantz), Arcana oeconomiæ et commercii, eller Handelens och hushåldnings-wärkets hemligheter: Undersökte och på det möjeligaste sätt utforskade, pröfwade och ändteligen framstälte uti åtskilliga capitel och materier (Stockholm, 1730), preface. The book came out in 1730, but he had begun the manuscript during his stay in England. Another manuscript, written at the same time but unpublished until 1767, revealed one of his sources in the long title:
Thoughts, on freedom in print, and its usefulness and harm; which in 1730 was translated from the English periodical, called Craftsman; but could not be promoted to the press, until the realm’s praiseworthy estates paved the way, with the ordinance of the 2 Dec. 1766. A short preface, on the proper value and property of freedom of the press, is also attached.
9 Tankar, om friheten i tryck, samt desz nytta och skada; hwilke år 1730 blifwit öfwersatte ifrån den engelska periodiska skriften, kallad Craftsman; men ej kunnat til trycket befordras, förrän riksens högloflige ständer dertil banat wägen fri, med förordningen af den 2 dec. 1766. Härwid bifogas jämwäl et kort företal, om tryck-frihetens rätta wärde och egenskap (Stockholm, 1767) Nordencrantz’s inspiration
The Craftsman was initiated in 1726, ‘against a backdrop of censorship and the resultant tame journalism’, and became the leading opposition newspaper to Robert Walpole’s long ministry 1721–42.
10 S. Varey, ‘The Craftsman’, Prose Studies, 16 (1993), 58–77, quote p. 63. It must have been easy for Nordencrantz to relate to Swedish politics and Chancellor Arvid Horn’s equally long ministry, 1720–38; drafts and excerpts in his private papers corroborate Nordencrantz’s claim that the translation lay hidden in his desk drawer for nearly four decades.
11 A. Burius, Ömhet om friheten, p. 378, n. 65. In the meantime he had returned to the subject in several books and pamphlets and became the inspiration for many others working both within and outside the political system.
12 See e.g. A. Nordencrantz, Oförgripelige tankar, om frihet i bruk af förnuft, pennor och tryck, samt huru långt friheten derutinnan i et fritt samhälle sig sträcka bör, tillika med påfölgden deraf (Stockholm, 1756).The next time we hear of freedom of the press is at the Diet of 1738–9. The nobleman Henning Adolf Gyllenborg argued that ‘among a free people a free press should be allowed’.
13 ‘hos et fritt folk ett fritt tryck bör tillåtas’, Sveriges ridderskaps och adels riksdags-protokoll från och med år 1719, 11: 1738‒1739, 3 (Stockholm, 1889), p. 348. This would not only promote culture and general instruction but also vitalise political discourse:
That each and every citizen without constraint or supervision may put his thoughts under the free judgement of the public, it drives away the barbarian darkness in a country, it encourages competition between cultured writers, through whom the truth more and more comes to the fore, and it helps a free people to know itself, its strengths and its weaknesses. Through freedom of the press, the fumes and blindness are averted, which are often held before the eyes of the public by powerful deceivers, and through the freedom of the press, everyone has the opportunity to defend a wounded innocence and a repressed powerlessness.
14 ‘At hvar och en medborgare utan tvång och upsyningsman får lägga sina tanckar under det almännas fria omdöme, det bortjagar det barbariska mörckret i et land, det främjar täflingen mellan vittra pennor, hvarigenom sanningen altmer och mer upbläncker, och det hielper et frijt folck till at kiänna sig sielf, sin styrcka och sin svaga. Genom tryckfrijheten hindras de dunster och förblindelser, som ofta genom konster slås det almänna för synen af mäcktige förledare, och genom tryckfriheeten har hvar och en tilfälle at försvara en sargad oskuld och en förtryckt menlösheet.’ Sveriges ridderskaps och adels riksdags-protokoll, 11:3, pp. 348f.Gyllenborg’s juxtaposition of a free people and a free press is reminiscent of Nordencrantz’s argument, but there is no established connection between the two proposals. If anything, there is reason to believe that Gyllenborg’s was inspired by his uncle Carl, who became guardian of his nephew in 1728. Carl Gyllenborg had spent thirteen years at the Swedish legation in London and was well acquainted with British politics. In 1722, soon after his return to Sweden and only a couple of years after the establishment of the new republican form of government, Carl Gyllenborg argued in the Chancellery that ‘in a free state no one should be forbidden to reason publicly about social life, especially as this is a means to uncover the truth’.
15 ‘uti en fri stat bör ingen förbjudas, att uti allmänna saker, som angå alla få publique raisonera, helst som sanningen derigenom kommer fram’, quoted from A. Burius, Ömhet om friheten, p. 214.However extensive the inspiration from Great Britain may have been in Sweden at this point, it seems to have been the comparable political circumstances that caught the attention, not principled tracts like David Hume’s
Of the Liberty of the Press, which was not published until 1741. At a later point, periodicals like
En fri swänsk (A Free Swede) wrote about freedom of the press as a fundamental right in all free societies, but the empirical examples were limited to ancient Rome and Great Britain, where liberty was defended and abuse and heresy were punished. The anonymous editor, an elderly law clerk named Magnus Pihlgren, approvingly quoted Eustace Budgell of
The Spectator, that while the liberty to discuss the nature of butterflies or the force of the magnet was guaranteed even in the most oppressive states like Turkey or Denmark, proper freedom of the press entailed the liberty to discuss political matters.
16 En fri swänsk (1761), no. 6, see also e.g. nos 3, 17, 46. Cf. Otto Sylwan, Svenska pressens historia till statshvälfningen 1772 (Lund, 1896), pp. 412f; A. Burius, Ömhet om friheten, pp. 254f.En fri swänsk connected to a movement that turned press freedom into a major question in the early 1760s. Following motions from members of the Cap Party, the Diet in 1760 formed a committee with representatives from all four estates to explore how a ‘reasonable freedom of the press’ could be introduced. Although it worked for over two years and presented several propositions, it never reached any conclusion. It was apparent, however, that freedom of the press would be a major issue at the next gathering of the Diet.
17 M. Skuncke, ‘Press Freedom in the Riksdag 1760‒62 and 1765‒66’, in B. Wennberg and K. Örtenhed, Press Freedom 250 Years, pp. 109‒16. In August 1765 a new committee was formed, and it worked for eleven months to prepare the matter.
Censor librorum Niclas von Oelreich was co-opted to the committee as an expert and to describe his work in detail – he is an ambiguous figure, not unlike the French censor Chrétien-Guillaume Malesherbes, but seems to have been intent on making his own office redundant.
18 The deliberations can be followed closely through the proceedings of the legislative committee: R 3405: Tredje utskottet 1765–1766, protokoll och bilagor, Swedish National Archives. On Malesherbes, see R. Chartier, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution (Durham, London, 1991), ch. 3. The committee assembled a large collection of domestic legislation as well as previous memorials and motions presented to the Diet, but the minutes from the committee’s 21 sessions only record one reference to experiences from other countries. It was during a discussion about the right to print the minutes and proceedings of the Diet. The committee presumed that few members of the Diet would object,
since nothing honours an upstanding member of the Diet more than when his thoughts are made public, and nothing holds the crooked within the bars of reason [like public demonstration].
Nota Bene: England’s example.
19 ‘emedan ingen ting mera hedrar en redelig Riksdagsman än då dess tankar blifwa bekantan och deremot ingenting håller en annors sinnad inom billighetens skrankor. NB: Änglands Exempel’, R 3405, 12 December 1765, fol. 371r.This opinion was not necessarily based on actual insights into the British political system but might as well have been a rhetorical stance that alluded to the widespread preconceptions of its supposed liberal character. For instance, China was often highlighted as a model society in Swedish discourse, and there were few who could challenge such statements with reference to first-hand experiences.
20 See L. Rydholm, ‘China and the World’s First Freedom of Information Act: The Swedish Freedom of the Press Act of 1766’, Javnost – The Public, 20 (2013), 45–64. Furthermore, at this point the political conditions in Great Britain were far from being as exemplary as some Swedish opinion leaders claimed (see below). The committee’s close scrutiny of Swedish legislation and the fact that no other references were made to the situation in other countries imply that the preparation of the freedom of the press legislation was first and foremost rooted in domestic conditions. This observation is in line with several studies that have demonstrated that Sweden’s rather turbulent constitutional history between the seventeenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century rarely drew inspiration from international examples other than on a general ideological level. Swedish politicians were familiar with all the standard works, from Aristotle to Montesquieu, but their ideas seldom survived in any substantial way the confrontation with a political culture that had been chiselled out through negotiations between the four estates ever since the Middle Ages.
21 Cf., e.g., F. Lagerroth, Frihetstidens författning: En studie i den svenska konstitutionalismens historia (Stockholm, 1915); L. Thanner, Revolutionen i Sverige efter Karl XII:s död: Den inrepolitiska maktkampen under tidigare delen av Ulrika Eleonora d.y:s regering (Uppsala, 1953); A. Brusewitz, Representationsfrågan vid 1809–10 års riksdag: En inledning till representationsreformens historia (Uppsala, 1913).The committee presented a proposition to the Diet in the summer of 1766. It suggested that all censorship should be abolished. However, in the deliberations of the four estates it soon became apparent that the Nobility would not consent to the law. To be adopted, a bill needed a majority of three estates, and the Clergy also showed hesitation. In order to avoid a complete rejection, the Burghers and the Peasantry had to accept that clerical authorities maintained pre-censorship in the domain of religious writings.
22 M.-C. Skuncke, ‘Press Freedom in the Riksdag 1760‒62 and 1765‒66’, pp. 116‒34.With this major exception, the Freedom of the Press Ordinance was signed by the king on 2 December 1766. It preserved censorship in religious matters, and it made four topics liable for prosecution: blasphemy, seditious libel, defamation and obscenities.
23 ‘His Majesty’s Gracious Ordinance Relating to Freedom of Writing and of the Press’ (1766), transl. P. Hogg, in The World’s First Freedom of Information Act: Anders Chydenius’ Legacy Today, ed. J. Mustonen (Kokkola, 2006), pp. 8‒17. J. Nordin and J. C. Laursen, ‘Northern Declarations of Freedom of the Press: The Relative Importance of Philosophical Ideas and of Local Politics’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 81 (2020), 223‒5. In spite of these restrictions, it is important to recognise that only violations on these four clearly defined grounds were subject to indictment. The Ordinance was formulated according to the principle of
nulla poena sine lege, no penalty without a law, which singled out the Swedish legislation rather substantially from the arbitrary legal situation in countries with otherwise wide margins for the press, such as Great Britain and the Netherlands.
24 J. Nordin, ‘From Seemly Subjects to Enlightened Citizens’, pp. 45‒56, and R. Nygren, ‘The Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 in its Historical and Legal Context’, pp. 167‒201, in B. Wennberg and K. Örtenhed, Press Freedom 250 Years.The most remarkable feature of the Freedom of the Press Ordinance is at any rate that it also contained a freedom of information clause. It provided that all citizens should have free access to all deliberations or minutes from the legal courts, the civil authorities, the Diet, and even from the Council of the Realm, i.e. the government. The only exception was matters of national security. All official acts and documents that were open to examination were also free to publish. The extent of this freedom of information is notable even with today’s standard in many democratic countries, and it was quite exceptional at the time. For example, it was only through the intervention of John Wilkes in 1771 that it became permissible to publish literal transcripts from the English parliament, and this right never extended to the proceedings of the Privy Council or the Cabinet.
25 P. D. G. Thomas, John Wilkes: A Friend to Liberty (Oxford, 1996), pp. 125‒40.