tion. 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.1

The restraints upon public liberty expired in the following year: but other provisions, designed to ensure 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 cooperation of delegates from different societies.2

The state prosecutions for treason were as infelici

For the third reading of the 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; amended by 9 and 10 Vict. c. 33.

Watson and

tous as those of 1794, which had been undertaken under similar circumstances. James Wat- Trials of son, Arthur Thistlewood, James Watson others, 1817. 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

insurrec

In the month of June disturbances, approaching the character of insurrection, broke out in Derbyshire Derbyshire; and the ringleaders were tried tion, 1817. 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 attorney-general.'

mouth's

When the repressive measures of this session had been passed, the government commenced a Lord Sidmore rigorous execution of the laws against circular, the press. Lord Sidmouth addressed a 27th, 1817. circular letter to the lords lieutenants of counties,

March

1 St. Tr., xxxii. 1, 674; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii. 158. 2 St. Tr., xxxii. 755-1394; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii. 179-183; Reports on the state of the country; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvii. 568, 679.

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 act upon it. He further informed them that the vendors 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 licence. Doubts were immediately raised concerning the lawfulness and policy of this circular; and the question was brought by Earl Grey before the Lords,'

Its lawfulness questioned, May 12th and June 25th, 1817.

2

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 recognised 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 informa

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.

tion; 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 from these constitutional considerations, it was urged that the exercise of such powers by justices of the peace was exposed to grave abuses. Men might be accused before a magistrate, not only of publishing libels, but of uttering seditious 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 committed to prison by a single magistrate,-possibly a. man of violent prejudices and strong political prepossessions.

On the part of ministers it was replied that magistrates, embarrassed in the discharge of their duties, having applied to the secretary of state for information, he had consulted the law officers, and

1 48 Geo. III. c. 58.

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 disputed, 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.

Powers exercised against the

Threatening, indeed, were now the terrors of the law. While every justice of the peace could issue his warrant against a supposed libeller, press, 1817. and hold him 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 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

1 48 Geo. III. c. 58.