Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

spare any exertion to obtain convictions. Ever jealous and distrustful of the press, they had left as little discretion to juries as they were able; and using freely the power reserved to them by the Libel Act of 1792, of stating their own opinion, they were eloquent in summing up the sins of libellers.1

withdrawal from Eng"I land.

William Cobbett, who had already suffered from the severities of the attorney-general, was not disposed to Cobbett's brave the secretary of state, but suspended his "Political Register," and sailed to America. do not retire," said he, "from a combat with the attorneygeneral; but from a combat with a dungeon, deprived of pen, ink, and paper. A combat with the attorney-general is quite unequal enough. That, however, I would have encountered. I know too well what a trial by special jury is. yet that, or any sort of trial, I would have stayed to face. But against the absolute power of imprisonment, without even a hearing, for time unlimited, in any jail in the king-. dom, without the use of pen, ink, and paper, and without communication with any soul but the keepers, against such a power it would have been worse than madness to attempt to strive." 2

Ministers had silenced and put to flight their most formidable foe; but against this success must be set their Trials of utter discomfiture by an obscure bookseller, who Hone, 1817. would never have been known to fame, had he not been drawn out from his dingy shop into a court of justice. William Hone had published some political squibs, in the form of parodies upon the liturgy of the church; and for this piti ful trash was thrice put upon his trial, for blasphemous and seditions libels. Too poor to seek professional aid, he de fended himself in person. But he was a man of genius in his way; and with singular ingenuity and persistence, and much quaint learning, he proved himself more than a match for the attorney-general and the bench.

1 Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vi. 517.

2 Political Register, 28th March, 1817.

120880

[ocr errors]

In vain did Lord Ellenborough, uniting the authority of the judge with the arts of a counsel, strive for a conviction. Addressing the jury, "under the authority of the Libel Act, and still more in obedience to his conscience and his God, he pronounced this to be a most impious and profane libel." But the jury were proof alike against his authority and his persuasion. The humble bookseller fairly overcame the awful chief justice; and, after intellectual triumphs which would have made the reputation of a more eminent man was thrice acquitted.1

These proceedings savored so strongly of persecution, that they excited a wide sympathy for Hone, amongst men who would have turned with disgust from his writings; and his trial, in connection with other failures, insured at least a temporary mitigation of severity in the administration of the libel laws.2

Trials in
Scotland.

M'Lareu and

At this time some trials in Scotland, if they remind us of 1793, afford a gratifying contrast to the administration of justice at that period. Alexander Baird, March M'Laren, a weaver, and Thomas Baird, a grocer,3 5th, 1817. were tried for sedition before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh. The weaver had made an intemperate speech at Kilmarnoch, in favor of parliamentary reform, which the grocer had been concerned in printing. It was shown that petitions had been received by Parlia ment, expressed in language at least as strong; but the accused, though defended by the admirable arguments and eloquence of Francis Jeffrey, were found guilty of se dition.*

1 Mr. Justice Abbott presided at the first trial; Lord Ellenborough at the second and third. Lord Ellenborough felt his defeat so sensibly, that on the following day he sent to Lord Sidmouth the draft of a letter of resignation. Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 236; Hone's Printed Trials; Mr. Charles Knight's Narrative in Martineau's Hist., i. 144.

2 Lord Dudley's Letters, 199.

8 So stated in evidence, St. Tr., xxxiii. 22, though called in the indictment" a merchant."

4 St. Tr., xxxiii. 1,

Neil Douglas, "Universalist Preacher," had sought to enliven his prayers and sermons with political Neil Douglas, lucubrations; and spies, being sent to observe 1817.

him, reported that the fervid preacher, with rapid utterance and in a strong Highland dialect, had drawn a seditious parallel between our afflicted king and Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon; and between the prince regent and King Belshazzar. The crown witnesses, unused to the eccentrici ties of the preacher, had evidently failed to comprehend him; while others, more familiar with Neil Douglas, his dialect, opinions, and preaching, proved him to be as innocent of sedition, as he probably was of religious edification. He was ably defended by Mr. Jeffrey, and acquitted by the jury.1

But the year 1819 was the culminating point of the protracted contest between the state and liberty of Public meetopinion. Distress still weighed heavily upon the ings in 1819. working classes. They assembled at Carlisle, at Leeds, at Glasgow, at Ashton-under-Line, at Stockport, and in London, to discuss their wants, and to devise remedies for their destitution. Demagogues were prompt in giving a political direction to their deliberations; and universal suffrage and annual Parliaments were soon accepted as the sovereign remedy for the social ills of which they complained. It was affirmed that the constitutional right to return members belonged to all communities. Unrepresented towns were invited to exercise that right, in anticipation of its more formal acknowledgment; and accordingly, at a large meeting at Birmingham, Sir Charles Wolseley was elected "legislatorial attorney and representative" of that populous place.2

Other circumstances contributed to invest these large assemblages with a character of peculiar insecu- State of the rity. A great social change had been rapidly ing popula developed. The extraordinary growth of manu- tion.

1 St. Tr., xxxiii. 634.

manufactur

2 Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 104. Sir Charles was afterwards arrested, while attending a meeting at Smithfield, for seditious words spoken by him at Stockport.

[ocr errors]

factures had suddenly brought together vast populations, severed from those ties which usually connect the members of a healthy society. They were strangers, deprived of the associations of home and kindred, without affection or traditional respect for their employers, and baffling, by their numbers, the ministrations of the church and the softening influence of charity. Distressed and discontented, they were readily exposed to the influence of the most mischievous portion of the press, and to the lowest demagogues; while so great were their numbers, and so densely massed together, that their assemblages assumed proportions previously unknown; and became alarming to the inhabitants and magistracy, and dangerous to the public peace.

Proclamation,

1819.

These crowded meetings, though addressed in language of excitement and extravagance, had hitherto been July 30th, held without disturbance. The government had watched them, and taken precautions to repress disorder: but had not attempted any interference with their proceedings. On the 30th of July, however, a proclamation was issued against seditious meetings; and large assemblages of men were viewed with increased alarm by the government and magistracy.

Meeting at

dispersed,

1819.

66

Following the example of Birmingham,' the reformers of Manchester appointed a meeting for the 9th of Manchester August, for the election of a legislatorial attorAug 16th, ney" but the magistrates, having issued a notice declaring an assemblage for such a purpose illegal, another meeting was advertised for the 16th, to petition for Parliamentary Reform. Great preparations were made for this occasion; and in various parts of Lancashire large bodies of operatives were drilled, in the night-time, and practised in military training. It was the avowed object of this drilling to enable the men to march in an orderly manner to the

1 At the Leeds meeting it had been resolved that a similar election should take place, when a suitable candidate had been found; but no rep resentative had been chosen. - Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 105.

meeting but the magistrates were, not unnaturally, alarmed at demonstrations so threatening.

On the 16th, St. Peter's Field in Manchester became the scene of a deplorable catastrophe. Forty thousand men 1 and two clubs of female reformers, marched in to the meeting, bearing flags, on which were inscribed the objects of their political faith,-"Universal Suffrage," " Equal Representation or Death," and "No Corn Laws." However menacing their numbers, their conduct was orderly and peaceful. Mr. Hunt, having taken the chair, had just commenced his address, when he was interrupted by the advance of cavalry upon the people. The Manchester Yeomanry, having been sent by the magistrates to aid the chief constable in arresting Mr. Hunt, and other reform leaders, on the platform, executed their instructions so awkwardly as to find themselves surrounded and hemmed in by the dense crowd, and utterly powerless. The 15th Hussars, now summoned to their rescue, charged the people sword in hand; and in ten minutes the meeting was dispersed, the leaders were arrested, and the terrified crowd driven like sheep through the streets. Many were cut down by sabres, or trampled upon by the horses: but more were crushed and wounded in their frantic struggles to escape from the military. Between 300 and 400 persons were injured: but happily no more than five or six lives were lost.

This grievous event brought to a sudden crisis the antagonism between the government and the popular State of pubright of meeting to discuss grievances. The magis- lic feeling. trates complimented the military upon their forbearance; and the government immediately thanked both the magistrates and the military, for their zeal and discretion in maintaining the public peace. But it was indignantly asked, not by demagogues and men ignorant of the law, but by statesmen and

1 It was variously estimated at from 20,000 to 60,000. Lord Liverpool said 20,000; Lord Castlereagh, 40,000. In the indictment against Hunt and others it was laid at 60,000.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »