Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Huut, Feb.

Another similar case illustrates the grave perils of the law of libel. In 1811, Messrs. John and Leigh Hunt Messrs. John were prosecuted for the republication of a spirited and Leigh article against military flogging from the "Stam- 24th, 1811. ford News." They were defended by the vigor and eloquence of Mr. Brougham, and were acquitted.1

ford News."

Yet a few days afterwards, John Drakard, the printer of the "Stamford News," though defended by the The "Stamsame able advocate, was convicted at Lincoln for March 18th, the publication of this very article.2 Lord Ellen- 1811. borough had laid it down that "it is competent for all the subjects of his Majesty, freely but temperately to discuss, through the medium of the press, every question connected with public policy." But on the trial of Drakard, Baron Wood expressed opinions fatal to the liberty of the press. "It is said that we have a right to discuss the acts of our legislature. This would be a large permission indeed. Is there, gentlemen, to be a power in the people to counteract the acts of the Parliament; and is the libeller to come and make the people dissatisfied with the government under which he lives? This is not to be permitted to any man, it is unconstitutional and seditious." Such doctrines were already repugnant to the law; but a conviction obtained by their assertion from the bench, proves by how frail a thread the liberty of the press was then upheld.

The last three years before the regency were marked by unusual activity, as well as rigor, in the adminis- Last three

the regency.

tration of the libel laws. Informations were mul- yers before tiplied; and the attorney-general was armed with a new power of holding the accused to bail.*

"Who would have mutinied for Cobbett's libel? or who would have risen up against the German soldiers? and how easily might he have been answered! He deserved some punishment; but to shut a man up in jail for two years for such an offence is most atrocious."—Sydney Smith's Mem., ii. 86.

1 St. Tr., xxxi. 367.

2 Ibid., 495.

8 lbid., 535.

4 From 1808 to 1811, forty-two informations were filed, of which twentysix were brought to trial. Lords' Deb. on Lord Holland's motion, March 4th, 1811; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xix. 140; Commons' Deb. on Lord Folke

It is now time again to review the progress of the press, Progress of during this long period of trial and repression. the press. Every excess and indiscretion had been severely visited: controversial license had often been confounded with malignant libel: but the severities of the law had not subdued the influence of the press. Its freedom was often invaded: but its conductors were ever ready to vindicate their rights with a noble courage and persistence. Its character was constantly improving. The rapidity with which intelligence of all the incidents of the war was collected, in anticipation of official sources, increased the public appetite for news: its powerful criticisms upon military operations and foreign and domestic policy, raised its reputation for judgment and capacity. Higher intellects, attracted to its service, were able to guide and instruct public opinion. Sunday newspapers were beginning to occupy a place in the periodical press, destined to future eminence, - and attempts to repress them, on the grounds of religion and morality, had failed. But in the press, as in society, there were many grades; and a considerable class of newspapers were still wanting in the sobriety and honesty of purpose necessary to maintain the permanent influence of political literature. They were intemperate, and too often slanderous. A lower class stone's motion, March 28th, 1811; Ibid., 548; Ann. Reg., 1811, p. 142; Romilly's Life, ii. 380; Horner's Life, ii. 139.

1 In 1799 Lord Belgrave, in concert with Mr. Wilberforce, brought in a bill for that purpose, which was lost on the second reading. Its loss was attributed by its promoters to the fact that three out of the four Sunday newspapers supported the government. Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 1006; Life of Wilberforce, ii. 424.

2 In his defence of John and Leigh Hunt, in 1811, Mr. Brougham gave a highly-colored sketch of the licentiousness of the press: "There is not only no personage so important or exalted, for of that I do not complain, but no person so humble, harmless, and retired, as to escape the defamation which is daily and hourly poured forth by the venal crew, to gratify the idle curiosity, or still less excusable malignity; to mark out, for the indulgence of that propensity, individuals retiring into the privacy of domestic life; to hunt them down and drag them forth as a laughing-stock to the vulgar, has become, in our days, with some men, the road even to popularity; but with multitudes the means of earning a base subsistence.”St. Tr., xxxi. 380.

of papers, clandestinely circulated in evasion of the stamp. laws, went far to justify reproaches upon the religion and decency of the press. The ruling classes had long been at war with the press; and its vices kept alive their jealousies and prejudice. They looked upon it as a noxious weed, to be rooted out, rather than a plant of rare excellence, to be trained to a higher cultivation. Holding public writers in low esteem, as instruments of party rancor, they failed to recognize their transcendent services to truth and knowledge.1

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

But all parties, whether regarding the press with jealousy or favor, were ready to acknowledge its extraordinary influ ence in affairs of state. "Give me," said Mr. Sheridan, "but the liberty of the press, and I will give the minister a venal House of Peers,-I will give him a corrupt and servile House of Commons, I will give him the full swing of the patronage of office, I will give him the whole host of ministerial influence, — I will give him all the power that place can confer upon him to purchase submission, and overawe resistance; and yet, armed with the liberty of the press, I will go forth to meet him undismayed: I will attack the mighty fabric he has reared, with that mightier engine: I will shake down from its height corruption, and lay it beneath the ruins of the abuses it was meant to shelter." 2

1 In 1808, the benchers of Lincoln's Inn passed a by-law, excluding all persons who had written for hire, in the daily papers, from being called to the bar. The other Inns of Court refused to accede to such a proposition. On the 23d March 1809, Mr. Sheridan presented a petition complaining of this by-law, which was generally condemned in debate, and it was soon afterwards rescinded by the benchers. Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 240. In 1810, Mr. Windham spoke of the reporters as having amongst them "bankrupts, lottery-office keepers, footmen, and decayed tradesmen." And he understood the conductors of the press to be "a set of men who would give in to the corrupt misrepresentation of opposite sides.". Hans. Deb. 1st Ser., xv. 330.

2 Feb. 6th, 1810. — Ibid., 341,

CHAPTER X.

Repressive Policy of the Regency: - Measures of 1817: The Manchester Meeting, 1819:- The Six Acts:- Advancing Power of Public Opinion: -The Catholic Association:- Freedom of the Press assured:- Political Unions, and the Reform Agitation: - Repeal Agitation: - Orange Lodges: - Trades' Unions:- The Chartists: - The Anti-Corn-Law League: - General Review of Political Agitation.

Lord Sid

tary of state,

1812.

THE regency was a period memorable for the discontents and turbulence of the people, and for the severity mouth secre- with which they were repressed. The working classes were suffering from the grievous burdens of the protracted war, from the high prices of food, from restraints upon trade, and diminished employment. Want engendered discontent; and ignorant and suffering men were misled into disorder, tumult, and violence. In June 1812, Lord Sidmouth was appointed secretary of state. Never was statesman more amiable and humane: but falling upon evil times, and committed to the policy of his generation, his rule was stern and absolute.

The mischievous and criminal outrages of the "Luddites," The Luddites, and the measures of repression adopted by the 1811-1814. government, must be viewed wholly apart from the history of freedom of opinion. Bands of famished operatives in the manufacturing districts, believing their distresses to be due to the encroachment of machinery upon their labor, associated for its destruction. Bound together by secret oaths, their designs were carried out with intimidation, outrage, incendiarism, and murder.1 Life and property were

1 A full account of these lawless excesses will be found in the State Trials, xxxi. 959; Ann. Reg., 1812, 54-66, &c. The Reports of the Secret

alike insecure; and it was the plain duty of the government to protect them, and punish the wrongdoers. Attempts, indeed, were made to confound the ignorance and turbulence of a particular class, suffering under a specific grievance, with a general spirit of sedition. It was not enough that the frame-breakers were without work, and starving: that they were blind to the causes of their distress; and that the objects of their fury were near at hand; but they were also accused of disaffection to the state. In truth, however, their combinations were devoid of any political aims; and the measures taken to repress them were free from just imputations of interference with the constitutional rights of the subject. They were limited to the particular evil, and provided merely for the discovery of concealed arms in the disturbed districts, the dispersion of tumultuous assemblies, and the enlargement of the jurisdiction of magistrates, so as to prevent the escape of offenders.2

[ocr errors]

expressly designed to

In 1815, the unpopular Corn Bill, raise the price of food, was not passed without Riots, riots in the metropolis." In the following year there 1815, 1816. were bread-riots and tumultuous assemblages of workmen at Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham, and Merthyr Tydvil. London itself was the scene of serious disturbances. All these were repressed by the executive government, with the ordinary means placed at its disposal.

Jan. 28th,

But in 1817, the excesses of mischievous and misguided men led, as on former occasions, to restraints Outrage on upon the public liberties. On the opening of prince regent, Parliament some bullets, stones, or other mis- 1817. siles, struck the state-carriage of the prince regent, on Committees, 14th July, 1812, are extremely meagre; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 951, 1029.

1 2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 962, 999, &c.; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 79-96.

2 52 Geo. III. c. 162.

8 Ann. Reg. 1815, 140; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 125.

4 Ibid., 143-162; Bamford's Passages in the Life of a Radical, i. 7, &c., Ann. Reg. 1816, 95.

« AnteriorContinuar »