CHAP. V. 1817. of the societies in very exaggerated language; and when men are convicted of using hyperbole in one case there is always primâ facie ground for thinking that they may be guilty of other exaggerations. The Lords' committee themselves defined their meaning when they spoke of the subversion of the constitution and the plunder of society. The subversion of the constitution which the secret societies were meditating was the enactment of universal suffrage and of annual Parliaments. The plunder of society which the secret societies were proposing was an alteration of the land laws on the lines which have since been laid down by Mr. Stuart Mill. These objects may have been very foolish and very impracticable, but they did not deserve the harsh language in which the committees of both Houses spoke of them. It is true that the committees added that these objects were to be attained by violence and insurrection. But, with the exception of the circumstances connected with the Spa Fields riot, neither committee placed its finger on a single definite act which proved their statement. The leaders of the Spa Fields riot were tried at the bar of the King's Bench for treason, and the jury refused to convict them. Their acquittal casts, to say the least, a doubt on the justice of the reports made by the secret committees of both Houses.1 Though, however, the riots of the preceding months had not been serious; though they had been quelled in every instance without great difficulty, vague apprehensions of the immediate future haunted men's minds. Southey, from his lonely retreat amongst the mountains of the Lake Country, wrote to assure Lord Liverpool that 'the manufacturing populace are not merely discontented with the Government, but absolutely abhor it with a deadly hatred.' The ministry were prepared to agree with the feelings of the Laureate. On the 21st of February 1 Hansard, vol. xxxv. pp. 411, 438-447. CHAP. V. 1817. Repressive measures Britain. Lord Sidmouth introduced into the House of Lords a bill for the temporary suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. On the 24th of February Lord Castlereagh, in the House of Commons, introduced three other bills; one to prevent seditious meetings and assemblies; another in Great to perpetuate and to extend to the Regent an act for the safety and preservation of his Majesty's person; and a third for the better prevention and punishment of all attempts to seduce persons serving.' The ministry succeeded in carrying all these measures; but their proposal was met with a very formidable opposition in both Houses. The general alarm of the nation, however, frustrated the attempt which one section of the Opposition made to obtain milder remedies. Lord Grenville, who had been the head of the Talents administration, and who was, in one sense, the leader of the loose and disorganised Opposition, separated himself from his own friends and supported the Ministry. Mackintosh was unable to persuade the House to substitute transportation for death as the punishment for the refusal of a seditious meeting to disperse. The reports of the secret committees had done their work: the powers which the Government demanded were given them by large majorities, and their bills became law.1 No ministry since that of Lord Liverpool, no Parliament since that of 1817, has ventured to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Great Britain. A far more serious danger than the Spa Fields meeting has occurred since that time, a far more formidable organisation than that of the Radicals has been arrayed against the British Government. Yet the ministry of 1848 and the two ministries of 1866 faced the Chartist riots and overcame the Fenian insurrection without suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Great Britain for a day. It is almost impossible to 1 Hansard, vol. xxxv. pp. 491, 551, 639, 795, 822, 931-946. Ann, Reg., 1817, Hist., pp. 23, 24. V. 1817. CHAP. justify the suspension of the Act in 1817. It is equally impossible to defend the law for the suppression of seditious meetings. What were the circumstances under which it was proposed? The organisers of the Radicals had had the dexterity to discover that, by adjourning a meeting legally convened, they could practically evade the law which required each meeting to be summoned on the requisition of seven householders, and thus keep up a continual agitation against the Government. It requires an effort to believe that these continually adjourned meetings constituted dangers which it was desirable to repress by exceptional legislation. But, even if adjourned meetings were dangerous, the Seditious Meetings Bill went far beyond the requirements to which it pointed. It was the deliberate object of the bill to prevent the existence of debating societies, lecture rooms, and reading rooms. The ministry even declined to exempt lectures in medicine, surgery, and chemistry from its operation. No debating society could sit, no lecture could be given, without the leave of the licensing magistrates. Some of the licensing magistrates, at any rate, were animated in administering the law by the narrowest views. One of the aldermen of London, in resisting the grant of a license to the Academical Society, declared that it was the purpose of the act to put down all political debate whatever.' A brother alderman concurred in this illiberal sentiment. But the most learned bodies were actuated by the same views. The Union-the wellknown debating society at Cambridge-was arbitrarily suppressed by the Vice-Chancellor.1 The mouth of the nation was gagged; and political discussion absolutely checked. 6 Repressive legislation was sanctioned at the time by the example of one great authority. Pitt, in the closing years of the eighteenth century, had been driven by the 1 Hansard, vol. xxxvi. pp. 1, 18. Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., pp. 29, 33. cessors. V. 1817. violence of the Jacobins to resort to arbitrary legislation CHAP. of a similar character; and the halo which still surrounded Pitt's memory shed a reflected light on those who imitated his policy. Posterity has hardly approved Pitt's later policy with the unanimity with which it has praised his earlier administration. The mere fact that Pitt, at a particular juncture, took a certain course would not be regarded now, as it would have been fifty years ago, as proof of its wisdom. But Pitt's fame has suffered more from the servile imitation of his followers than from the criticisms of all his opponents. He has, in this way, been made indirectly responsible not merely for the acts of his own administration, but for the policy of his sucNever was a greater injustice done to any minister. Pitt, during the close of his administration, stood at bay against Jacobinism. The Continent was in arms; Ireland was in insurrection; the principles of Jacobinism were permeating society; Paine was publishing his Rights of Man;' William Godwin denouncing the injustice of all law in Political Justice.' The war with France in 1793 was a war against Jacobinism; and statesmen, who conceived such a war necessary, were logically compelled to combat the foe, which was simultaneously struggling against them in the United Kingdom. But the last excuse for repressive legislation had been removed by the battle of Waterloo. The exceptional state of things, which the Revolution had created, had passed away; for good or for evil, Legitimism had been restored; and an exhausted Continent had sunk into a sullen acquiescence. Revolution was no longer a danger, because revolution had everywhere been stamped out; and the excuse for arbitrary government had been definitely removed by the restoration of order. Nothing, then, but the very strongest necessity would In Ireland. have justified the legislation of 1817; and, though the state of society was critical, the crisis hardly warranted CHAP. V. 1817. Flight of the severe legislation of that year. The course which the ministry pursued in Ireland affords the best ground for criticising the legislation which they applied to Great Britain. Ireland had suffered as severe distress as any part of the country. The Irish were emigrating in unusual numbers; and the emigrants were drawn from the most orderly section of the community. A fearful fever, probably occasioned by famine, was breaking out in various places; and outrages too horrible to particularise cast terror over the community. During the three preceding years exceptional power had been given to the magistrates to deal with counties proclaimed or disturbed. The powers were arbitrary. They were far less universal and less arbitrary than a general suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Yet the Government were satisfied with the continuance of the powers which they already possessed without resorting to new measures. The Irish Insurrection Act was renewed; the Irish Government was empowered by the Peace Preservation Act to appoint superintendent magistrates and constables in disturbed districts, and to defray some portion of their cost out of the public funds. The measure, which thus became law, founded the Constabulary Force, which has probably done more to restore peace in Ireland than any other precaution. Its ultimate results have, therefore, proved highly beneficial; its immediate consequences were, moreover, gratifying.2 The Irish Government found themselves able to reduce the military force in Ireland from 25,000 to 22,000 men, the artillery from 400 to 200 guns. 8 In Ireland, then, the Government refrained from suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. In England, where the distress was not greater, and the danger less serious, 1 Colchester, vol. ii. p. 585. Liverpool, vol. ii. p. 279. Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., pp. 77, 80, 85, 125, 127. 2 This was the force the men of which received the name of Peelers,' a name which has since been transferred to England. Hansard, vol. xxxvi. p. 970. 3 Hansard, vol. xxxv. pp. 980-983. Ann. Reg., 1817, Hist., p. 43. |