Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

his return from the House of Lords. This outrage was followed by a message from the prince regent, communicating to both Houses papers containing evidence of sedi tious practices. These were referred to secret committees, which reported that dangerous associations had been formed in different parts of the country, and other seditious practices carried on which the existing laws were inadequate to prevent. Attempts had been made to seduce soldiers; arms and banners had been provided, secret oaths taken, insurrection plotted, seditious and blasphemous publications circulated. The jails were to be broken open, and the prisoners set free: the Bank of England and the Tower were to be stormed the government subverted: property plundered and divided. Hampden clubs were plotting revolution: Spenceans were preparing to hunt down the owners of the soil, and the "rapacious fundholders." 2

Repressive

measures

The natural consequence of these alarming disclosures was a revival of the repressive policy of the latter years of the last century, to which this period afproposed. fords a singular parallel. The act of 1795, for the protection of the king from treasonable attempts, was now extended to the prince regent; and another act renewed, to restrain the seduction of soldiers and sailors from their allegiance. To such measures none could object: but there were others, dictated by the same policy and considerations as those, which, on former occasions, had imposed restraints upon public liberty. Again, the criminal excesses of a small class were accepted as evidence of wide-spread disaffection In suffering and social discontent were detected the seeds of revolution; and to remedies for partial evils were added jealous restrictions upon popular rights. It was proposed to extend the acts of 1795 and 1799, against corresponding

1 Evidence of Lord James Murray; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxv. 34; Ann Reg. 1817, p. 3.

2 Reports of Secret Committees, Lords and Commons; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxv. 411, 438.

societies, to other political clubs and associations, whether affiliated or not: to suppress the Spencean clubs, to regulate meetings of more than fifty persons, to license debating societies; and lastly, to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. These measures, especially the latter, were not passed without remonstrance and opposition. It was maintained that the dangers were exaggerated, that the existing laws were sufficient to repress sedition, and that no encroachment should be suffered on the general liberties of the people for the sake of reaching a few miscreants whom all good citizens abhorred. While the inadequacy of the means of the conspirators to carry out their fearful designs was ridiculed, it was urged that the executive were already able to cope with sedition, to put down secret and other unlawful societies, and to restrain the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels. But so great

was the power of the government, and so general the repugnance of society to the mischievous agitation which it was proposed to repress, that these measures were rapidly passed through both Houses, without any formidable opposition.

The restraints upon public liberty expired in the following year; but other provisions, designed to insure Parliament against intimidation and insult, were allowed a permanent place in our constitutional law. Public meetings were prohibited within a mile of Westminster Hall, during the sitting of Parliament or the courts; and to arrest the evil of conventions assuming to dictate to the legislature, restraints were imposed on the appointment and coöperation of delegates. rom different societies.

The state prosecutions for treason were as infelicitous as

1 Speeches of Lord Sidmouth in the House of Lords, and Lord Castlereagh in the House of Commons; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxv. 551, 590; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 172; Acts 57 Geo. III. c. 3, 6, 7, 19.

2 For the third reading of Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill there were 265 votes against 103 the minority including nearly all the opposition. — Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxv. 822; Edinburgh Review, Aug. 1817, p. 524–543. 2 57 Geo. III. c. 19, §§ 23, 25.

Trials of

others, 1817.

those of 1794, which had been undertaken under similar circumstances. James Watson, Arthur Thistlewood, Watson and James Watson the younger, Thomas Preston, and John Hooper, were indicted for high treason, arising out of a riotous meeting in Spa Fields, which they had called together, and other riotous and seditious proceedings, for which none will deny that they deserved condign punishment. They were entitled to no sympathy as patriots or reformers; and the wickedness of their acts was only to be equalled by their folly. But the government, not warned by the experience of 1794,-indicted them, not for sedition and riot, of which they were unquestionably guilty, but for treason; and so allowed them to escape with impunity.1

Derbyshire

1817.

[ocr errors]

In the month of June disturbances, approaching the character of insurrection, broke out in Derbyshire; Insurrection, and the ringleaders were tried and convicted. Brandreth, commonly known as the Nottingham Captain, Turner and Ludlam were executed: Weightman and twenty-one others received His Majesty's pardon, on condition of transportation or imprisonment; and against twelve others no evidence was offered by the attorneygeneral.2

Lord Sid

mouth's cir

27th, 1817.

When the repressive measures of this session had been passed, the government commenced a more rigorcular, March ous execution of the laws against the press. Lord Sidmouth addressed a circular letter to the lordslieutenants of counties, acquainting them that the law officers of the crown were of opinion, that a justice of the peace may issue a warrant to apprehend any person charged on oath with the publication of a blasphemous or seditious libel, and compel him to give bail to answer the charge; and desiring them to communicate this opinion to the magistrates at the ensuing quarter sessions, and to recommend them to

1 St. Tr., xxxii. 1, 674; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 158.

2 St. Tr., xxxii. 755-1394; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 179-183; Reports on the state of the country; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvii. 568, 679.

Its lawfulness

May 12th

25th, 1817.

[ocr errors]

act upon it. He further informed them that the venders of pamphlets or tracts should be considered as within the provisions of the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, and should be dealt with accordingly, if selling such wares without a license. Doubts were immediately raised concerning the lawfulness and policy of this circular; and the questioned, question was brought by Earl Grey before the and June Lords, and by Sir Samuel Romilly before the Commons. Their arguments were briefly these. The law itself, as declared in this circular, was ably contested, by reference to authorities and principles. It could not be shown that justices had this power by common law: it had not been conferred by statute; nor had it been recognized by any express decision of the courts. But, at all events, it was confessedly doubtful, or the opinion of the law officers would not have been required. In 1808, it had been doubted if judges of the Court of King's Bench could commit or hold to bail persons charged with the publication of libels, before indictment or information; and this power was then conferred by statute. But now the right of magistrates to commit, like the judges, was determined, neither by Parliament, nor by any judicial authority, but by the crown, through its own executive officers. The secretary of state had interfered with the discretion of justices of the peace. What if he had ventured to deal, in such a manner, with the judges? The justices had been instructed, not upon a matter of administration or police, but upon their judicial duties. The constitution had maintained a separation of the executive and judicial authorities; but here they had been confounded. The crown, in declaring the law, had usurped the province of the legislature; and in instructing the magistrates, had encroached upon an independent judicature. And, apart

8

1 May 12th, 1817 (Lords); Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvi. 445. See also Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 176.

2 Ibid., June 25th (Commons), 1158.

8 48 Geo. III. c 58.

Jx9

216

from these constitutional considerations, it was urged that the
exercise of such powers by justices of the peace was ex-
posed to grave abuses. Men might be accused before a
magistrate, not only of publishing libels, but of uttering sedi
tious words they might be accused by spies and informers
of incautious language, spoken in the confidence of private
society; and yet, upon such testimony, they might be com-
mitted to prison by a single magistrate, possibly a man of
violent prejudices and strong political prepossessions. Ou
the part of ministers it was replied that magistrates, embar
rassed in the discharge of their duties, having applied to
the secretary of state for information, he had consulted the law
officers, and communicated their opinion. He had no desire
to interfere with their discretion, but had merely promulgated
a law. The law had been correctly expounded, and if dis-
puted, it could be tried before a court of law on a writ of
habeas corpus.
But, in the meantime, unless the hawkers of
seditious tracts could be arrested, while engaged in their
pernicious traffic, they were able to set the police at defiance.
Whatever the results of these discussions, they at least
served as a warning to the executive, ever to keep in view
the broad principle of English freedom, which distinguishes
independent magistrates from prefects of police.

Threatening, indeed, were now the terrors of the law.

The press,
1817.

Powers exer

the press.

While every justice of the peace could issue his warrant against a supposed libeller, and hold him cised against to bail; the secretary of state, armed with the extraordinary powers of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, could imprison him upon bare suspicion, and detain him in safe custody without bringing him to trial. The attorney-general continued to wield his terrible ex-officio informations, holding the accused to bail, or keeping them in prison in default of it, until their trial. Defendants were punished, if convicted, with fine and imprisonment, and, even if acquitted, with ruinous costs. Nor did the judges

[ocr errors]

1 48 Geo. III. c. 58.

« AnteriorContinuar »