own opinion, they were eloquent in summing up the sins of libellers.1 William Cobbett, who had already suffered from the severities of the attorney-general, was Cobbett's not disposed to brave the secretary of state, withdrawal but suspended his Political Register,' and England, sailed to America. I do not retire,' said he, from a combat with the attorney-general: 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 gaol in the kingdom, 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 Hone, 1817. Ministers had silenced and put to flight their most formidable foe: but against this success Trials of must be set their utter discomfiture by an obscure bookseller, who 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 pitiful trash was thrice put upon his trial, for blasphemous and seditious libels. Too poor 1 Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vi. 517. 2 Political Register, 28th March, 1817, son. to seek professional aid, he defended himself in perBut 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. 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 savoured 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, ensured at least a temporary mitigation of severity in the administration of the libel laws.2 At this time some trials in Scotland, if they remind us of 1793, afford a gratifying contrast to the administration of justice at that Trials in ' 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. Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii. 236; Hone's Printed Trials; Mr. Charles Knight's Narrative in Martineau's Hist., i. 144. 2 Lord Dudley's Letters, 199. March 5th, period. Alexander M'Laren, a weaver, and Thomas Baird, a grocer,' were tried for sedition M'Laren before the High Court of Justiciary at and Baird, Edinburgh. The weaver had made an in- 1817. temperate speech at Kilmarnoch, in favour of parliamentary reform, which the grocer had been concerned in printing. It was shown that petitions had been received by Parliament, 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 sedition." 6 Douglas, Neil Douglas, Universalist Preacher,' had sought to enliven his prayers and sermons with Neil political lucubrations; and spies being sent 1817. to observe 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 eccentricities 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.3 But the year 1819 was the culminating point of the protracted contest between the state Public and liberty of opinion. meetings in Distress still 1819. So stated in evidence, St. Tr., xxxiii. 22, though called in the indictment a merchant.' St. Tr., xxxiii. 1. 3 Ibid., 634. weighed heavily upon the 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.' ing popula Other circumstances contributed to invest these State of the large assemblages with a character of pemanufactur- culiar insecurity. A great social change tion. had been rapidly developed. The extraordinary growth of manufactures 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 por Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 104. Sir Charles was afterwards arrested, while attending a meeting at Smithfield, for seditious words spoken by him at Stockport. tion 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. tion, July These crowded meetings, though addressed in language of excitement and extravagance, had Proclamahitherto been held without disturbance. 30th, 1819. 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. at Manches Aug. 16th, Following the example of Birmingham,' the reformers of Manchester appointed a meeting Meeting for the 9th of August, for the election of a ter dispersed, 'legislatorial attorney:' but the magis- 1819. trates 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 meeting: but the At the Leeds meeting it had been resolved that a similar election should take place, when a suitable candidate had been found: but no representative had been chosen.-Ann. Reg., 1819, p. 105, |