societies were concerned. They were further compromised by seditious attempts to foment discontent in the army and navy, and by the recent mutiny in the fleet. But whatever their plots, or crimes, their secrecy alone made them dangerous. They were tracked to their hiding places by the agents of the government; and in 1799, when the rebellion had broken out in Ireland, papers disclosing these proceedings were laid before the house of Commons. A secret committee related, in great detail, the history of these societies; and Mr. Pitt brought in a bill to repress them. sponding Bill, April It was not sought to punish the authors of past excesses: but to prevent future mischiefs. CorreThe societies of United Englishmen, Societies Scotsmen, and Irishmen, and the London 19th, 1799. Corresponding Society, were suppressed by name; and all other societies were declared unlawful of which the members were required to take any oath not required by law, or which had any members or committees not known to the society at large, and not entered in their books, or which were composed. of distinct divisions or branches. The measure did not stop here. Debating clubs and reading-rooms, not licensed, were to be treated as disorderly houses. All printing presses and type foundries were to be registered. Printers were to print their names on every book or paper, and register the names of their employers. Restraints were even imposed upon the lending of books and newspapers for hire. This 1 An Act had been passed in 1797 to punish this particular crime, 37 Geo. III. c. 70. rigorous measure encountered little resistance. Repression had been fully accepted as the policy of the state; and the opposition had retired from a hopeless contest with power. Nor for societies conducted on such principles, and with such objects, could there be any defence. The provisions concerning the press introduced new rigours in the execution of the law, which at another time would have been resisted: but a portion of the press had, by outrages on decency and order, disconcerted the stanchest friends of free discussion.1 The series of repressive measures was now complete. We cannot review them without sadness. Liberty had suffered from the Repressive measures completed, 1799. license and excesses of one party, and the fears and arbitrary temper of the other. The government and large classes of the people had been brought into painful conflict. The severities of rulers, and the sullen exasperation of the people, had shaken that mutual confidence which is the first attribute of a free state. The popular constitution of England was suspended. Yet was it a period of trial and transition, in which public liberty, repressed for a time, suffered no permanent injury. Subdued in one age, it was to arise with new vigour in another. Political agitation, in its accustomed forms of Administra public meetings and association, was now checked for several years,2-and freedom of discussion in the press continued to be re tion of the libel laws, 1799-1811. Reports of Committees on Sealed Papers, 1799; Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 579, 1000; Debates, Ibid., 984, &c.; 39 Geo. III. c. 79. 2 In Scotland, as a body to be deferred to, no public existed.'— Cockburn's Mem., 88. See also Ibid., 282, 302, 376. 6 Gilbert strained by merciless persecution. But the activity of the press was not abated. It was often at issue with the government; and the records of our courts present too many examples of the license of the one, and the rigours of the other. Who can The Rev. read without pain the trials of Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. Wakefield and his publishers, in 1799? On one side we see an eminent scholar dissuading the people, in an inflammatory pamphlet, from repelling an invasion of our shores: on the other, we find publishers held criminally responsible for the publication of a libel, though ignorant of its contents; and the misguided author punished with two years' imprisonment in Dorchester gaol,'-a punishment which proved little short of a sentence of death. Who can peruse without indignation the trial of the conductors of the Courier,' in the same year, for a libel upon the Emperor of Russia,3 in which the pusillanimous doctrine was laid down from the Bench, that public writers were to be punished, not for their 1 St. Tr., xxvii. 679; Erskine's Speeches, v, 213; Lord Campbell's Chancellors, vi. 517. 2 £5,000 was subscribed for him, but he died a fortnight after his release. Mr. Fox, writing March 1st, 1799, to Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, says: The liberty of the press I consider as virtually destroyed by the proceedings against Johnson and Jordan; and what has happened to you I cannot but lament, therefore, the more, as the sufferings of a man whom I esteem, in a cause that is no more. -Fox Mem., iv. 337.—And again on June 9th:-'Nothing could exceed the concern I felt at the extreme severity (for such it appears to me) of the sentence pronounced against you.'-Ibid., 339. 8 This libel was as follows: 'The Emperor of Russia is rendering himself obnoxious to his subjects by various acts of tyranny, and ridiculous in the eyes of Europe by his inconsistency. He has now passed an edict prohibiting the exportation of timber, deals, &c. In consequence of this ill-timed law, upwards of one hundred sail of vessels are likely to return to this kingdom without freights.' guilt, but from fear of the displeasure of foreign powers.1 The First Consul and press, 1802. From such a case, it is refreshing to turn to worthier principles of freedom, and indethe English pendence of foreign dictation. However often liberty may have been invaded, it has ever formed the basis of our laws. When the First Consul, during the peace of Amiens, demanded that liberty of the press in England should be placed under restraints not recognised by the constitution, he was thus answered by the British government :His Majesty neither can nor will, in consequence of any representation or menace from a foreign power, make any concession which may be in the smallest degree dangerous to the liberty of the press, as secured by the constitution of this country. This liberty is justly dear to every British subject: the constitution admits of no previous restraints upon publications of any description: but there exist judicatures wholly independent of the executive, capable of taking cognisance of such publications as the law deems to be criminal; and which are bound to inflict the punishment the delinquents may deserve. These judicatures may investigate and punish not only libels against the government and magistracy of this kingdom, but, as has been repeatedly experienced, of publications defamatory of those in 1 Lord Kenyon said: When these papers went to Russia and held up this great sovereign as being a tyrant and ridiculous over Europe, it might tend to his calling for satisfaction as a national affront, if it passed unreprobated by our government and our courts of justice.' Trial of Vint, Ross, and Perry: St. Tr., xxvii. 627; Starkie's Law of Libel, ii. 217. whose hands the administration of foreign governments is placed. Our government neither has, nor wants, any other protection than what the laws of the country afford; and though they are willing and ready to give to every foreign government all the protection against offences of this nature, which the principle of their laws and constitution will admit, they never can consent to new-model their laws, or to change their constitution, to gratify the wishes of any foreign power.' 1 But without any departure from the law of Engfand, the libeller of a foreign power could Trial of Feb. 21st, be arraigned; and this correspondence was followed by the memorable trial of Jean Peltier.3 Mr. Mackintosh, in his eloquent and masterly defence of the defendant, dreaded this prosecution as the first of a long series of conflicts between the greatest power in the world, and the only free press remaining in Europe;' and maintained, by admirable arguments and illustrations, the impolicy of restraining the free discussion of questions of foreign policy, and the character and conduct of foreign princes, as affecting the interest of this country. The genius of his advocate did not 1 Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Merry, Aug. 28th, 1802; Parl. Hist., xxxvi. 1273. 2 R. v. D'Eon, 1764; Starkie's Law of Libel, ii. 216; R. v. Lord George Gordon, 1787; State Tr., xxii. 175; Vint, Ross, and Perry, 1799, supra, p. 331. 3 Letter from M. Otto to Lord Hawkesbury, July 25th, 1862; Parl. Hist., xxxvi. 1267. The Attorney-General (Spencer Perceval) spoke of it as 'one of the most splendid displays of eloquence he ever had occasion to hear;' and Lord Ellenborough termed it 'eloquence almost unparalleled.' |