The news and text of the Declaration of Independence reached England by mid-August 1776. In the newly United States, the text had been printed in over 30 newspapers in the span of a month. In Great Britain and Ireland, the Declaration was printed in still more newspapers, from London to Dublin, from Edinburgh to Canterbury. The majority of British newspaper printings of the Declaration of Independence look similar to the American printings. But some censored the text, even going so far as to change words or only excerpt certain portions. Examine how these choices change the meaning, and in many cases even shift the target, of the Declaration of Independence.
Censoring
The most commonly censored sentence in British newspaper editions of the Declaration of Independence looks like this: “The history of the present K— of Great-Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations…” Or this: “The History of the present —— of G—B——, is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations…” The second example comes from Drewry’s Derby Mercury (Derby, Derbyshire, August 23), which also censors this sentence: “A P——, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the R—r of a free People.” Obscuring “King,” “Prince,” “Ruler,” and even “Great Britain” seems reasonable, especially since the reader could likely figure out the words for themselves. But some papers took censorship a step further and eliminated all forms of “Tyranny.” For example, The Kentish Gazette (Canterbury, Kent, August 21) concludes the sentence that begins, “The history of the present —— of Great Britain” with “the establishment of an absolute T—— over these States.” The third grievance is also affected: “He has refused to pass other laws for accommodation of large districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the rights of representation in the legislature—a right inestimable to them, and formidable to T—— only.”
Excerpting
Take away the first two and last two paragraphs, and the Declaration of Independence is, as Samuel Adams put it, “a Catalogue of Crimes of the deepest Dye.” The Bath Chronicle (Bath, Somerset, August 22) adds the following nota bene: “Our readers will observe that the recital of grievances in the above declaration differs little from those repeatedly published by the Provincial Assemblies, only in this the Congress have thrown off the mask, and now attribute their oppressions to The K—g himself, and not, as in former addresses, to the Ministry and Parliament.” Several other British newspapers invoke this as their reason for skipping over the catalogue entirely. The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser (London, August 17) pauses after “the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government” and explains, “[Here they enumerated their several grievances, the substance of which have repeatedly appeared in all the public prints, and then proceed as follows:]” before moving on to the Declaration’s accusations against their “British brethren.”
The Hampshire Chronicle (Southampton, Hampshire, August 19) summarizes the list of grievances — “The Congress next recite a number of proceedings detrimental to the Colonies, most of which have been already mentioned, at different times, from the resolutions of their several Assemblies, with this difference, that they now attribute the oppressions to a great person, instead of the ministry and parliament, as their former meetings. They then conclude thus:” — before continuing. But this printing differs a bit, by first referring to the “history of the present rulers” rather than the “history of the present King of Great Britain,” and then entirely skipping the sentence about “A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant…”
Transforming
In a handful of newspapers, changing just a few words made for a glaringly different text. In these newspapers, “The History of the present King of Great-Britain...” transforms into “The present History of Great Britain...” In the list of grievances, “He” becomes “It”. In short, the accusations are levelled against Parliament, rather than King George III. In one of the first British newspaper editions, The St. James’s Chronicle; or British Evening-Post (London, August 15-17), the summation of the list of grievances changes to “A Government whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define Tyranny, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.” As the Bath Chronicle and other newspapers noted, the Continental Congress had previously charged Parliament with their injustices, but in the Declaration of Independence, they “threw off the mask” and blamed the King directly. So, by changing “He” to “It,” these newspaper printings alter the intention of the Declaration entirely.
Here is a brief (and far from complete) list of British newspaper printings that alter the text of the Declaration of Independence in one or more of these ways:
-
Lloyd's Evening Post
- London, England
- August 14-16, 1776
- Censoring Example: "A ——, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a T—— is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People."
-
The General Evening Post
- London, England
- August 15-17, 1776
- Censoring Example: "The history of the present —— of G— B——, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations."
-
The St. James's Chronicle; or British Evening-Post
- London, England
- August 15-17, 1776
- Transforming Example: "It has refused its Assent to Laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good."
-
Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser
- London, England
- August 17, 1776
- Excerpting
-
Hampshire Chronicle
- Southampton, Hampshire, England
- August 19, 1776
- Excerpting
-
The Northampton Mercury
- Northampton, Northamptonshire, England
- August 19, 1776
- Censoring Example: "The History of the present K--- of Great-Britain, is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations..."
-
The Leeds Intelligencer
- Leeds, Yorkshire, England
- August 20, 1776
- Censoring Example: "He has refused to pass other Laws for Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Rights of Representation in the Legislature; a right inestimable to them, and formidable to T—— only."
-
The Kentish Gazette
- Canterbury, Kent, England
- August 21, 1776
- Censoring Example: "The history of the present —— of Great Britain, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations; all having in direct object, the establishment of an absolute T—— over these States."
-
Saunders's News-Letter
- Dublin, Ireland
- August 21-23, 1776
- Censoring Example: "A ——, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a T—— is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
-
The Bath Chronicle
- Bath, Somerset, England
- August 22, 1776
- Censoring Example: "The history of the present K— of Great-Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations..."
-
Stamford Mercury
- Stamford, Lincolnshire, England
- August 22, 1776
- Transforming Example: "A government whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
-
Drewry's Derby Mercury
- Derby, Derbyshire, England
- August 23, 1776
- Censoring Example: "A P——, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the R—r of a free People."
-
Creswell and Burbage's Nottingham Journal; or the Newark, Gainsborough, Retford and Worksop General Advertiser
- Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England
- August 24, 1776
- Censoring Example: "A P——, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a T——, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
-
The Ipswich Journal
- Ipswich, Suffolk, England
- August 24, 1776
- Censoring Example: "A P——, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the r—r of a free people."
-
The Reading Mercury and Oxford Gazette
- Reading, Berkshire, England
- August 26, 1776
- Censoring Example: "The history of the present —— of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations..."
By Emily Sneff
Last | Unsullied by Falsehood