to the present day. But the other four Acts were of a very different character. The first of these four authorised the magistrates in certain counties to issue warrants to search for arms; the second of them authorised the seizure of seditious and blasphemous libels; and made transportation the punishment for a second conviction for libel. The third regulated and restricted the right of public meeting; and the fourth subjected all publications below a certain size to the stamp duty on newspapers. The first and third of these four were proposed as temporary measures; the second and fourth of them as permanent Acts. The Seizure of Arms Bill was almost forced on the Government by the follies of the Radicals themselves. Watson, who had been concerned in the Spa Fields riot, had the folly to boast at a Smithfield meeting that there were 800,000 Radicals armed. The foolish boast intensified the fears which agitated the breasts of the upper classes. Lord Darlington solemnly declared in the House of Lords that he had received intelligence that preparations were being made in the North of England for a rising in arms. Lord Strathmore confirmed Lord Darlington's intelligence; and even Lord Grey admitted the crisis to be serious. Amidst the universal terror which these utterances inspired the Arms Bill rapidly made way. A proposal to confine the right of search to the daytime was rejected by a large majority, and the bill became law in its original form.2 The bill to prevent seditious and blasphemous libels created more opposition than the Arms Bill. Libels, indeed, of a seditious and blasphemous nature were being scattered broadcast through the country; the Government, moreover, had signally failed in its prosecution of Hone. But neither the increased circulation of seditious libels 1 Plumer Ward, vol. ii. 1124-1163. Ann. Reg., 1819, Hist., СНАР. V. 1819. СНАР. V. 1819. nor the failure of certain prosecutions justified the in- '1 The feeling which the bill provoked proved so strong that the Government found themselves compelled partially to give way. They consented to withdraw the punishment of transportation from the bill, and to be satisfied with banishment alone. The concession did not remove the objections which the Opposition felt to the measure, 1 See the protest of the Lords, Hansard, vol. xli. p. 747. V. but it facilitated its passage through the House of Com- CHAP. mons. No one could defend the publications which the Radicals were disseminating. All respectable people 1819. would have welcomed the punishment of their authors; and the excesses of a few men, who endeavoured to associate themselves with the cause of freedom, unfortunately afforded the Ministry an excuse for interfering with the liberty of the printing press. The measure, however, which thus became law, proved utterly useless. The Ministry did not dare to enforce its provisions. Ten years afterwards it was repealed, but its repeal was as formal a matter as its enactment. It was already dead.' 2 There was perhaps less objection in principle to the imposition of a stamp duty on all small pamphlets than to the severe punishments enacted in the Seditious and Blasphemous Libels Bill. Newspapers were already taxed; but the cheaper broadsheets, circulating among the poorer classes, succeeded in evading the definition of a newspaper and in escaping the tax. Cobbett was consequently able to sell the 'Register' for twopence. Parliament was, therefore, asked to declare that these periodicals should be subject to the tax which every newspaper paid. The Ministry at the same time insisted that every bookseller, before commencing his business, should enter into recognisances for his good behaviour. It was, indeed, objected by the Opposition that it was a primary principle of the English Constitution that an Englishman might publish whatever he pleased on his own responsibility; and that the privileges of the people were infringed by an enactment which required the publisher in the first instance to enter into recognisances. But the Opposition were only able to state 1 Ann. Reg., 1819, Hist., pp. 143– 150. * See Macaulay's speech on the 10th of October, 1831. Hansard, CHAP. V. 1819. these arguments; they were wholly powerless to enforce them. The bill became law.1 The most stringent of the Six Acts, however, was that which regulated and restricted the right of public meeting. The provisions of the measure introduced by the Government were concisely explained by Lord Liverpool in a letter to Lord Grenville :-Meetings of counties called by the lord lieutenant or sheriff; meetings of corporate towns called by the mayor or other first magistrate; meetings called by five or more justices of the peace were excepted from it. But, with these exceptions, 'all meetings for the consideration of grievances in Church and State, or for the purpose of preparing petitions, &c., except in the parishes (or townships, where parishes are divided into townships) where the individuals usually reside,' were prohibited. No person was allowed to attend such meetings unless he was an actual resident within such parish or township; while, to prevent simultaneous meetings, it was further decided that 'previous notice must be given of the day when such meetings are to be held by seven inhabitants to a neighbouring magistrate,' who was allowed discretionary power to put off the meeting. Persons coming armed and persons carrying banners were also prohibited from attending such meetings at all.2 The object of these proposals was plain. None but the upper classes were to be allowed to organise large meetings. The lower classes were to be permitted only to attend meetings in their own parishes; and itinerant orators, who would of course be strangers, were to be excluded from them. The right of meeting was to be nominally preserved, but it was to be continued in a shape which made its preservation valueless. Parochial meetings,' said Lord Liverpool, 'would generally be flat;' and 1 Ann. Reg., 1819, Hist., pp. 158-163. Cf. Hansard, 3rd series, vol. vi ̧ Liverpool, vol. ii. p. 433. p. 10. 6 V. 1820. the Ministry had sufficient courage to face a 'flat' de- CHAP. monstration. In 1819, moreover, the measure had an additional significance. Nearly every large town in the country is now corporate; and the chief magistrate of nearly every large town would consequently be competent to convene a meeting. But in 1819 Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, and other wealthy and populous towns' were unincorporate, and were therefore 'excluded from the advantages reserved for other decayed and comparatively unimportant places.'1 Manchester and Birmingham, therefore, already denied direct Parliamentary representation, were thus deprived of the only means which they still enjoyed of securing attention to their wishes. A measure which limited the right of meeting necessarily aroused considerable opposition; but the Opposition in Parliament was powerless to effect any change in the policy of the ministry. The whole Tory party was clamouring for decisive measures; the Grenvilleites, with Lord Grenville and Lord Buckingham at their head, were seconding the Tories; and the remainder of the Opposition were unable to do more than limit the duration of the Bill to a period of five years. The session of the Six Acts closed at Christmas, the ministry having substantially carried all their proposals. the king. The measures of the ministry, however reprehensible Death of they may seem in other respects, had one justification : they were successful. The firmness of the authorities checked the disorders which were everywhere menacing and convinced the leaders of the Radicals, or those of them who were still at large, that it was impossible to pursue their designs against the Government. The sullen tranquillity into which the country in consequence lapsed was simultaneously cheered by a slight improvement in its trade. The working classes at the same time experienced the advantages of an increased demand for 1 Ann. Reg., 1819, Hist., p. 154. |